LVIEW 

OF   LAMBERT'S  "NOTES 
ON  INGERSOLL" 


BY 
HELEN  M.  LUCAS 


NEW  YORK 

THE  TRUTH  SEEKER  COMPANY 
1909 


EXPLANATORY. 

This  was  begun  with  the  idea  of  proving  to 
Catholics  that  the  real  Ingersoll  was  very  different 
from  the  false  one  of  the  "Notes";  but  Mr.  Lam- 
bert's method  made  it  impossible  to  discuss  the  mat- 
ter in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  any  chance  of  Catho- 
lics' reading  it  without  anger.  So  the  plan  of  giv- 
ing as  true  an  exposition  as  possible  of  the  "Notes" 
for  anyone  to  read  who  would  was  carried  out  as 
the  best  that  could  be  done  in  the  case.  A  correct 
idea  of  a  man  who  has  been  misrepresented  will 
gradually  spread  among  all  kinds  of  people  if  num- 
bers perform  their  duty  to  let  the  truth  be  known 
by  a  word,  quotation,  newspaper  article,  letter,  or 
book  as  the  occasion  comes.  This  opinion  is  the 
reason  for  offering  you  this  View. 

A  friend  advised  me  not  to  take  the  trouble  to 
write  on  this  subject,  because,  she  said,  it  had  been 
completely  discussed  at  the  time  the  Lambert  book 
was  published.  But  that  was  not  the  case  among 
those  I  knew,  and  very  few  of  those  I  meet  now 
know  anything  about  it. 

I  hope  better  writers  than  I  am  will  be  induced 
to  help  to  give  a  more  perfect  understanding  of 
Lambert  and  Ingersoll. 


SUBJECT  DIVISIONS 


EXPLANATORY    4 

INGERSOLL-BLACK  DISCUSSION  AND  SOME  OF 

THE  ENSUING  TREATISES  5 

ETERNITY  OF  THE  UNIVERSE  n 

WORDS,  LAW  AND  FORCE  13 

CREATED  UNIVERSE;  SELF-EXISTENT  UNIVERSE    18 
EQUAL  RIGHTS  OF  ALL  TO  EXPRESS  THOTS  ON 

THE   INFINITE    24 

DESIGN   ARGUMENT    28 

LAMBERT  EXPLAINS  THAT  SUFFERING  Is  NOT 
DESIGNED;     IT    RESULTS     FROM     CRIME — 

CRIME  THE  RESULT  OF  LIBERTY 34 

ASSERTIONS  AND  MIRACLES  43 

THE  COMMANDMENTS    48 

LIBERTY    89 

POLYGAMY,   SLAVERY  AND   WAR,   WITH   PER- 
SONALITIES FOR  DESSERT 101 

THE   BIBLE — SLAVERY    in 

RAPID  RISE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  PROOF  OF  ITS 

DIVINE  ORIGIN    117 

FOUNDERS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  123 

AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  GOSPELS — MIRACLES..   128 

JOSEPHUS — INSPIRED  WITNESSES    138 

GENEALOGY  OF  JESUS   149 

DOCTRINES  OF  THE  GOSPELS — LAST  WORDS  OF 

JESUS  ON  THE  CROSS 154 

GOSPELS — SALVATION,  INFIDELS  160 

INFIDELS,  ATHEISTS,  REASON  169 

THE  ATONEMENT    175 

NON-RESISTANCE    188 

STANDARD  OF  RIGHT  AND  WRONG 191 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERTS  NOTES. 

• 

The  I nger soil-Black  Discussion  and  Some  of  the 
Ensuing  Treatises. 

In  1881  Mr.  Allen  Thorndyke  Rice,  editor  of  the 
North  American  Review,  asked  Col.  Robert  G. 
Ingersoll  to  write  for  the  Review  on  the  subject, 
"Is  All  of  the  Bible  Inspired?"  and  asked  Judge 
Jeremiah  S.  Black  to  write  an  answer.  The  articles 
were  written  and  published,  and  Mr.  Ingersoll  an- 
swered Mr.  Black,  but  Mr.  Black  refused  to  an- 
swer Mr.  Ingersoll. 

The  introduction  to  Mr.  Lambert's  "Notes  on 
Ingersoll"  begins  with  the  charge,  which  had  been 
already  disproved,  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  prevented 
the  appearance  of  an  answer  from  Mr.  Black. 
The  denial  of  the  editor  of  the  Review  is  sufficient 
answer  to  the  charge.  To  the  denial  the  editor 
adds  the  explanation  that  he  urged  Mr.  Black  to 
answer ;  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  was  ignorant  of  any  dis- 
satisfaction on  the  part  of  Mr.  Black  until  after 
his  own  answer  had  appeared,  and  was  anxious 
that  Mr.  Black  should  rejoin. 

Although  no  one  was  found  to  answer  Ingersoll 


6  VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES. 

Mr.  G.  P.  Fisher  wrote  an  article  in  favor  of  the 
Christian  religion,  which  was  published  in  Febru- 
ary, 1882.  It  began:  "I  comply  with  the  request 
of  the  North  American  Review  that  I  should  write 
an  article  on  the  Christian  religion.  Not  being  am- 
bitious to  shine  in  the  character  of  a  malus  haereti- 
corum,  I  shall  not  enter  the  lists  as  a  combatant  in 
the  debate  which  has  lately  been  waged  in  its 
pages."  In  the  last  paragraph  he  says:  "Should 
anyone  be  moved  to  contradict  statements  in  the 
preceding  article,  I  shall  not,  partly  for  the  reason 
stated  at  the  outset,  feel  obliged  to  make  reply.  I 
have  no  fear  that  candid  readers  will  infer  from 
my  silence  that  the  propositions  which  have  been 
stated  above  admit  of  no  further  defense."  "In- 
gersoll  As  He  Is"  is  my  authority  for  the  infor- 
mation that  he  wrote  with  the  stipulation  that  In- 
gersoll  should  not  be  permitted  to  answer  him. 

We  have  the  "Notes  on  Ingersoll,"  a  dissertation 
on  the  discussion  of  Ingersoll  and  Black,  by  Rev. 
L.  A.  Lambert,  a  Catholic  priest.  In  answer  we 
have  an  admirable  book  by  Mr.  B.  W.  Lacy,  who 
says  on  his  title  page  he  writes  "by  invitation  of 
Rev.  Father  Lambert."  With  easy  good  nature  he 
presently,  in  his  introduction,  quotes  the  invitation, 
which  ends:  "We  hold  ourselves  responsible  to 
him"  (Ingersoll)  "and  to  all  the  glib  little  whiffets 
of  his  shallow  school." 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  7 

By  way  of  answer  to  Mr.  Lacy,  Mr.  Lambert 
published  a  book,  "Tactics  of  Infidels,"  which 
should  be  answered  fully,  not  characterized  in  a 
single  sentence  here. 

Of  course,  Mr.  Ingersoll  has  never  answered  Mr. 
Lambert,  because  the  only  course  for  a  gentleman 
to  take  was  to  pass  on.  If  some  one  should  accost 
you  on  the  street,  shaking  his  fists  in  your  face, 
shouting  opprobrious  epithets,  calling  you  "idiot," 
"liar,"  "fool  or  dishonest,  you  may  take  your 
choice,"  charging  you  with  "egotism,"  "sophistry," 
and  "brazen  audacity,"  saying  you  stop  your  "clat- 
ter," and  pause  in  your  "ribaldry"  (all  of  these  and 
more,  quite  as  insulting,  are  in  the  short  introduc- 
tion to  the  "Notes"),  would  you  not  pass  on?  And 
a  "debate"  of  such  a  character  in  print  would  be 
still  more  irrational, 

Misleading  insinuations  and  contemptuous  epi- 
thets, which  occur  so  often  in  the  "Notes,"  lead 
readers  who  are  barred  by  their  religious  rulers 
from  seeing  the  other  side  to  suppose  that  Mr.  In- 
gersoll is  an  unintellectual  buffoon. 

Pointing  out  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong  is  not  personal  abuse.  Criticizing  admitted 
atrocities  is  not  "wounding  and  lacerating  the 
hearts  and  faith  and  feelings  of  those  by  whose 
tolerance  he  is  permitted  to  outrage  the  common 


8  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

sense  and  sentiment  of  Christendom,"  as  Lambert 
charges. 

Showing  reasons  for  thinking  that  barbarous  pas- 
sages  of  the  Bible  were  the  work  of  barbarous  peo- 
ple and  not  God-given  rules  for  our  guidance  is 
not  considered  by  all  a  process  of  laceration  of 
hearts,  but  by  some,  at  least,  a  work  of  humanity. 
As  for  tolerance — Catholics  uphold  the  old  Spanish 
Inquisition.  As  for  ridicule  of  religion — I  have 
heard  very  religious  people  ridicule,  and  sometimes 
misrepresent,  other  people's  religion.  The  rule  is  to 
hold  only  one's  own  religion  sacred. 

In  trying  to  belittle  Mr.  Ingersoll  the  author 
praises  those  others,  from  whom  he  wishes  us  to 
think  Mr.  Ingersoll  has  copied;  ascribing  "intense 
earnestness  and  masculine  vigor"  to  "Tom"  Paine, 
"learning  and  wit"  to  Voltaire,  "philosophical  pen- 
etration" to  Hobbes  and  Bolingbroke,  "analytical 
faculty"  to  Herbert  Spencer,  "industry"  to  Tyndall 
and  Huxley,  and  "comprehensiveness  and  incisive 
logic"  to  John  Stuart  Mill.  This  brings  up  the 
question  of  how  he  would  characterize  Ingersoll  if 
he  wished  to  write  disparagingly  of  Hobbes  or 
any  of  the  others  mentioned  above,  and  specify  their 
lacking  attributes.  "All  these,"  wrote  Mr.  Lambert, 
"are  masters  in  their  way,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  has 
not  succeeded  in  imitating  or  understanding.  Want- 
ing in  originality  he  draws  liberally  from  the  wri- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  9 

tings  of  Paine,  Voltaire,  Bolingbroke,  and  others 
for  his  points  and  arguments." 

Points  and  arguments  are  very  good  things  to 
have  in  books.  If  Mr.  Lambert  had  only  put  down 
the  names  of  the  authors  from  which  the  points 
and  arguments  were  drawn  when  he  quoted  from 
Ingersoll  maybe  we  might  stumble  on  an  explana- 
tion of  how  they  could  have  been  imitated  without 
being  understood.  Anyhow,  points  and  arguments 
are  very  much  to  be  preferred  to  abusive  personali- 
ties. 

Infidels,  says  the  author,  have  said  nothing  new 
since  the  time  of  Celsus,  Porphyry  and  Julian,  for- 
getting that  their  arguments  are  often  based  on  dis- 
coveries made  since  the  time  of  the  old  authors  he 
mentions. 

Mr.  Lambert  says  the  "moral  code  of  Moses  is  as 
impervious  to  his  attacks  as  are  the  pyramids  of 
Egypt,"  etc.  It  might  be  answered,  it  is  not  now  in 
force  in  civilized  countries.  People  are  now  fined 
and  imprisoned  for  selling  diseased  meat  to  any- 
body, foreign  or  native;  and  giving  it  to  the 
stranger  within  our  gates  is  considered  just  as  crim- 
inal. It  is  hoped  that  witchcraft  will  never  again  be 
punished  by  death.  We  may  say  the  same  of  the 
crime  of  disobedience  of  children,  and  Sabbath 
breaking.  Even  the  Jews,  who  still  keep  the  Sab- 
bath as  a  holy  day,  would  pick  up  sticks  if  they 


io  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

needed  them,  tho,  according  to  the  Bible,  God,  ivhen 
questioned  particularly,  pronounced  the  sentence  of 
stoning  to  death.  Perhaps  he  neglected  to  prescribe 
the  penalty  when  giving  the  laws  thru  Moses ;  any- 
how the  Jews  did  ask  him  what  they  should  do  with 
the  guilty  Sabbath  breaker.  Slavery,  which  was 
established  and  regulated  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  now 
abhorred  by  many  people — many  good  people,  tho 
the  doctrine  that  it  was  a  crime  was  started,  Mr. 
Black  said  in  his  debate  with  Ingersoll,  by  "the  ad- 
herents of  a  political  faction  of  this  country,"  who 
were  "not  a  very  respectable  portion"  of  the  "civil- 
ized world."  Also,  his  faith  and  reason  both  as- 
sured him  "that  the  infallible  God  proceeded  upon 
good  grounds  when  he  authorized  slavery  in  Ju- 
dea."  You  see,  Mr.  Black  gives  reasons  for  think- 
ing slavery  right;  we  should  honor  him  for  that, 
altho  many  of  us  do  not  think  his  reasons  convinc- 
ing. 

Mr.  Lambert.  The  Christian  is  not  bound,  at  the 
call  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  or  anyone  else,  to  reprint 
proofs;  that  Mr.  Ingersoll's  ignorance  of  those  ar- 
guments is  no  reason  why  they  should  be  repeated ; 
that  it  is  Mr.  Ingersoll's  article  which  is  on  trial, 
and  he  proposes  to  consider  that. 

Comment.  How  can  the  article  be  dealt  with 
leaving  out  of  consideration  the  subject  of  the  ar- 
ticle, which,  of  course,  is  the  subject  of  the  whole 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  II 

debate?  Why  write  a  book  on  any  subject  if  rea- 
soning is  to  have  no  place  in  it?  He  says  that 
proofs  of  what  Mr.  Ingersoll  cannot  believe  are  on 
record  and  have  never  been  answered  by  Mr.  In- 
gersoll's  ancestors  in  Atheism  and  unbelief,  from 
Anaximander,  Epicurus  and  Lucretius  down  to 
d'Holbach,  Leland,  Cabanis,  Hobbes,  and  Paine. 
Such  valuable  proofs,  and  Mr.  Lambert  will  not 
give  us  even  one ! 

THE  ETERNITY  OF  THE  UNIVERSE. 

Mr.  Lambert  begins  chapter  i  by  quoting  Mr. 
Ingersoll:  "The  universe,  according  to  my  idea, 
always  was  and  forever  will  be." 

Lambert. — "When  you  say,  'according  to  my 
idea,'  you  leave  the  inference  that  the  theory  of  an 
eternal  universe  never  entered  the  mind  of  man 
until  your  brain  acquired  its  full  development.  Of 
course  you  did  not  intend  to  mislead  or  deceive, 
you  simply  meant  that  your  idea  of  the  universe  is 
like  most  modern  plays  adapted  from  the  French 
or  elsewhere.  Your  philosophy,  like  those  plays, 
wants  the  freshness  and  flavor  of  originality,  and 
suffers  from  bad  translation.  The  old  originals 
from  which  you  copy  thot  it  incumbent  on  them 
to  give  a  reason,  or,  at  least,  a  show  of  reason,  'for 
their  idea.'  In  this  enlightened  age  you  do  not 


12  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

deem  this  necessary.  It  is  sufficient  for  you  to  for- 
mulate your  'idea.'  To  attempt  to  prove  it  would 
be  beneath  you.  Is  this  the  reason  why  you  do  not 
advance  one  single  argument  to  prove  the  eternity 
of  matter?  Have  you  got  so  far  as  to  believe  that 
your  'idea'  has  the  force  of  an  argument,  or  that 
the  science  of  philosophy  must  be  readjusted  be- 
cause you  happen  to  have  an  'idea'  ?" 

Comment.  The  first  and  second  sentences  of  the 
comment  by  this  language  critic  contradict  each 
other,  and  the  text  quoted  gives  no  grounds  for 
either  sentence.  "According  to  my  idea"  is  the 
same  thing  as  "That  is  only  what  I  think ;  I  may  be 
wrong."  What  follows  shows  that  Ingersoll  meant 
the  idea  was  not  authoritative,  for  he  goes  on :  "On 
this  subject  nothing  can  be  positively  known." 

He  did  advance  argument  in  proof  of  his  idea  of 
the  eternity  of  matter:  observation  of  Nature. 

To  this  the  author  of  the  Notes  opposes  his  idea, 
without  quotation  marks,  which  means  that  his 
ideas  are  really  ideas. 

Lambert.  "That  which  is  eternal  is  infinite.  It 
must  be  infinite  because,  if  eternal,  it  can  have 
nothing  to  limit  it. 

"But  that  which  is  infinite  must  be  infinite  in 
every  way.  If  limited  in  any  way,  it  would  not  be 
infinite. 

"Now  matter  is  limited.    It  is  composed  of  parts 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  13 

and  composition  is  limitation.  It  is  subject  to 
change,  and  change  involves  limitation.  Change 
supposes  succession,  and  there  can  be  no  succession 
without  a  beginning,  and,  therefore,  limitation. 
Thus  far  we  are  borne  out  by  reason,  experience, 
and  common  sense." 

Then— 

"Matter  is  limited,  and,  therefore,  finite;  and  if 
finite  in  anything,  finite  in  everything;  and  if  finite 
in  everything,  therefore  not  eternal." 

Comment.  It  is  supposed  the  author  spread  this 
out  so  much  because  he  considered  it  so  weighty. 

WORDS— "LAW"  AND  "FORCE." 

Ingersoll.  "We  know  nothing  of  what  we  call 
the  laws  of  nature,  except  as  we  gather  the  idea  of 
law  from  the  uniformity  of  phenomena  springing 
from  like  conditions.  To  make  myself  clear :  Water 
always  runs  down  hill." 

Lambert.  "We  acquire  a  knowledge  of  Nature 
by  observing  the  effects  of  the  forces  of  nature ;  but 
we  do  not  'gather  an  idea  of  law'  from  a  study  of 
those  forces  and  their  effects.  The  idea  of  law  in 
general  is,  and  must  be,  prior  to  the  idea  of  par- 
ticular laws."  (He  illustrates  by  instancing  a  stone, 
which,  thrown  up,  comes  down  again.)  "The  mind 
here  does  not  'gather  an  idea  of  law,'  but  begins  in- 


14  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

stinctively"  (he  says  instinctively)  "to  seek  the  law 
in  the  case.  To  seek  for  a  law  presupposes  the  idea 
of  law,  for  we  do  not  seek  for  that  of  which  we 
have  no  idea. 

"To  talk  about  'gathering  an  idea  of  law  from 
phenomena'  is  unphilosophical.  We  conclude,  or 
deduce  laws  from  phenomena,  but  we  cannot  'gath- 
er an  idea'  of  law  from  anybody.  To  gather  an 
idea  is  like  gathering  a  huckleberry  or  an  Ingersoll. 
It  is  not  customary  to  gather  a  unit.  You  confound 
idea  with  judgment  or  deduction." 

Comment.  Judgment  or  deduction  gives  you  the 
idea.  In  other  words,  you  gather  the  idea  by  your 
judgment  of  phenomena,  or  deduction  from  it.  No 
one  confines  all  words  to  one  meaning.  Webster 
defines  gather:  "To  derive,  as  an  inference;  to 
collect,  as  a  conclusion,  from  circumstances  that 
suggest,  or  arguments  that  prove;  to  infer;  to  con- 
clude." 

Perhaps  one  is  deficient  in  humor  who  fails  to 
see  that  a  joke  like  gathering  a  huckleberry  or  an 
Ingersoll  is  worth  considerable  sacrifice  of  sense, 
time  and  point. 

Lambert.  Ingersoll  is  unfortunate  in  saying 
water  always  runs  down  hill ;  that  running  down  hill 
is  an  exception  to  the  general  action  of  water ;  that 
its  general  tendency  is  upward  and  outward;  in- 
stances steam,  vapor,  dew ;  the  effect  of  the  equator 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  15 

and  mountains;  the  effect  of  the  rotation  of  the 
earth,  and  of  the  earth's  being  a  spheroid.  "You 
saw  somewhere  a  bit  of  water  running  down  hill 
and  'gathered  the  idea'  that  it  always  does  so." 

Comment.  After  this  discourse  a  man  whose 
mind  is  on  the  argument  of  the  question  under  dis- 
cussion by  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  Mr.  Black — the  eterni- 
ty of  the  universe — would  be  apt  to  say  he  under- 
stood perfectly  what  Mr.  Ingersoll  meant  by  water 
always  runs  down  hill,  but  how  can  an  extended 
essay  to  show  that  it  does  not  run  down  hill  affect 
the  question  at  issue? 

Compare  Ingersoll's  clear  and  concise  statement 
with  the  pages  urging  that  water  very  seldom  runs 
down  hill.  Thru  the  "Notes"  there  are  many  pages 
of  language  criticism,  instead  of  arguments  touch- 
ing the  subject  of  debate. 

Lambert  (continuing  the  subject  of  the  water's 
running  down  hill).  "Your  view  was  too  narrow 
and  local.  It  wanted  breadth  and  comprehensive- 
ness. You  misinterpret  nature,  as  you  misunder- 
stood and  misinterpreted  Moses  and  revealed  re- 
ligion. You  have  proved  yourself  an  incompetent 
interpreter  of  nature,  and  you  cannot  be  relied  on 
when  you  presume  to  criticise  and  condemn  or  deny 
that  which  is  above  nature." 

Comment.  Suppose  Ingersoll  had  written  the 
pages,  partly  quoted,  partly  summarized  above; 


16  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

terms  as  polite  as  pedantic  or  wordy  would  never 
have  been  applied  to  him  by  a  critic  like  the  wri- 
ter of  the  "Notes." 

There  are  four  or  five  more  pages,  similar  to  the 
lecture  given  above,  to  the  effect  that  Ingersoll  had 
confounded  law  and  force  with  some  malignant 
purpose  in  view,  tho  he  doesn't  hint  what  that  pur- 
pose is.  On  page  28  attention  is  called  to  some  ital- 
icized proposition  which  seems  to  me  to  be  hard  to 
understand : 

Lambert.  "There  is  an  inherent  principle  in  the 
forces  of  nature  which  causes  them  to  act  in  the 
same  manner  under  the  same  circumstances.  This 
however,  is  not  a  law,  but  the  nature  of  the  forces 
themselves.  The  laws  of  nature,  then,  as  common- 
ly understood,  are  the  uniform  action  of  natural 
forces,  expressed  in  words.  When  physicists  speak 
of  the  laws  of  nature,  they  refer  to  the  forces  of 
which  the  laws  are  the  verbal  expression.  They 
suppose  philosophers  have  sufficient  intelligence  to 
understand  this  fact;  and  yet  it  appears  that  they 
are  sometimes  mistaken.  In  all  you  say  on  this  sub- 
ject you  confound  law  with  force;  whether  this  is 
done  intentionally  or  thru  ignorance  I  need  not  stop 
to  consider." 

Comment.  The  definition  of  the  laws  of  nature 
which  is  printed  in  italics — the  uniform  action  of 
natural  forces — so  far  seems  to  me  to  show  what 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  17 

I  have  been  thinking  all  along,  that  the  two  phrases, 
laws  of  nature  and  uniform  action  of  natural  forces, 
mean  exactly  the  same  thing;  but  if  so,  why  all  these 
pages  of  criticism  of  the  first  phrase?  Why  this 
charge  of  confounding  the  two  for  some  dishonest 
purpose,  or,  as  appears  on  page  28,  of  confounding 
them  intentionally  or  thru  ignorance?  Particularly 
hard  to  understand  is  the  phrase  which  follows  the 
ones  just  compared — expressed  in  words.  How  can 
we  express  in  words  the  uniform  action  of  natural 
law?  Does  he  mean  that  "uniform  action  of  natu- 
ral forces"  conies  as  near  expressing  the  idea  as  we 
can  by  words?  If  it  is  expressed  in  words  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  the  rest  of  the  book  is  ex- 
pressed in  words,  why  put  it  in  italics?  Why  say 
expressed  in  words  at  all?  Could  it  be  the  italics 
were  put  there  as  an  assurance  that  the  thot  is  all 
right — that  it  does  mean  something,  even  if  we 
can't  make  out  what  it  is?  The  hope  arises  that  if 
it  had  been  expressed  in  large  capitals  we  might 
have  seen  the  meaning  at  once.  But  now  the  fear 
arises  that  trying  to  comprehend  the  idea  of  force 
expressed  in  words  is  too  strong  for  an  ordinary 
brain. 

The  next  sentence  says  the  same  thing  with  only 
a  slight  change  in  the  wording :  "When  physicists 
speak  of  the  laws  of  nature,  they  refer  to  the  forces 
of  which  the  laws  are  but  the  verbal  expression." 


i8  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

You  see  it  is  the  very  same  in  meaning,  but  what 
is  the  meaning?  The  next  sentence,  "They  sup- 
posed philosophers  had  sufficient  intelligence  to  un- 
derstand; but  it  appears  that  they  are  mistaken," 
has  not  crushed  out  the  desire  to  fathom  Mr. 
Lambert's  Bunsbyan  thots  expressed  in  a  flood 
of  words. 

The  closing  words  of  chapter  ii  still  further  roil 
the  flood:  "Your  quibbles  on  the  word  'law'  have 
been  already  exposed.  Force  is  the  cause  of  the 
phenomena.  The  law  is  the  mere  statement  of  what 
the  force  will  do  in  any  given  case." 

To  see  if  my  little  intellect  has  quite  ceased  to 
act  I  turn  back  to  Ingersoll  and  read,  "Law  does  not 
cause  the  phenomenon,  but  the  phenomenon  causes 
the  idea  of  law  in  our  minds."  That  seems  quite 
clear  to  me,  and  I  take  courage  to  go  on  to  chapter 
iii  (i6th  edition),  which  Mr.  Lambert  begins  with 
a  quotation  from  Ingersoll. 

CREATED     UNIVERSE;    OR,    SELF-EXIST- 
ENT UNIVERSE. 

Ingersoll.  "To  put  a  God  back  of  the  universe 
compels  us  to  admit  that  there  was  a  time  when 
nothing  existed  but  this  God ;  that  this  God  had  lived 
from  eternity  in  an  infinite  vacuum,  and  in  absolute 
idleness.  The  mind  of  every  thoughtful  man  is 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  19 

forced  to  one  of  these  two  conclusions :  either  that 
the  universe  is  self-existent,  or  that  it  was  created 
by  a  self -existent  being.  To  my  mind,  there  are  far 
more  difficulties  in  the  second  hypothesis  than  in  the 
first." 

[In  his  answer  Mr.  Lambert  separates  this  into 
three  parts.  As  the  answer  to  the  first  half  of  the 
first  sentence  is  pretty  long  I  will  summarize  part  of 
it:] 

Lambert.  "It  compels  us  to  admit  nothing  of  the 
kind.  The  eternal  God  can  place  an  eternal  act. 
His  creative  act  could,  therefore,  be  coeternal  with 
his  being.  The  end  of  the  act,  that  is,  creation, 
could  be  coexistent  with  the  eternal  act,  and,  there- 
fore, eternal."  He  says  it  could  be  so,  Christianity 
does  not  say  that  it  is  so,  but  reason  teaches  that  it 
could  have  been.  But  if  it  is  not,  Ingersoll's  con- 
clusion does  not  follow.  "For,  in  this  hypothesis  as 
time  began  with  creation  and  is  the  measure  of  its 
endurance,  it  follows  that  before  creation  was  time 
was  not.  Hence,  God  did  not  exist  in  time  before 
creation.  God  IS.  To  him  there  is  neither  past, 
present,  nor  future,  only  eternity.  God  is  alone  be- 
fore creation  was." 

Comment.  That  is  a  pretty  ingenious  way  of  say- 
ing God  could  create  himself  and  the  universe  at  the 
same  time,  but  if  he  didn't  he  didn't  exist  before 


2O  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

creation.  But  there  is  the  sentence,  "God  is 
alone  before  creation  was." 

To  one  who  was  not  educated  in  a  theological 
school  of  any  kind  it  seems  as  if  that  last  thot 
knocked  out  the  other  two,  or  as  if  either  of  the 
other  two  could  knock  out  the  last  one. 

And  it  seems  as  if  the  past,  present,  and  future 
make  up  eternity. 

Lambert.  "But  granting  that  God  is  alone  before 
creation  was,  what  follows?"  Here  he  quotes  the 
last  half  of  the  first  sentence  of  his  text,  and  an- 
swers, "If  God  lived  in  it  it  could  not  have  been  a 
vacuum.  A  vacuum  is  that  in  which  nothing  is.  In 
the  hypothesis  that  God  is,  he  is  something;  he  is 
infinite,  and  an  infinite  vacuum  is  infinite  nonsense. 
But  the  word  has  a  gross,  material  sense,  and  you 
used  it  for  a  purpose." 

Comment.  Let  us  see  about  the  infinite  nonsense ; 
what  does  the  Bible  say?  It  seems  strange  to  me 
that  Mr.  Lambert  did  not  quote  the  story  of  crea- 
tion from  it,  instead  of  taking  so  much  pains  to  give 
a  different  explanation. 

Genesis  has  it:  "In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth,  and  the  earth  was  without 
form  and  void"  (a  vacuum)  "and  darkness  was  up- 
on the  face  of  the  deep;  and  the  spirit  of  God 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters." 

As  that  was  before  creation  the  waters  did  not 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  21 

have  to  be  created;  they  were  already  (placed?)  in 
the  vacuum !  Is  it  possible  that  the  waters  created 
God?  All  that  he  had  to  do  with  them  was  to  di- 
vide them  and  put  the  firmament  between  them. 
"Let  there  be  a  firmament  in  the  midst  of  the 
waters,  and  let  it  divide  the  waters  from  the 
waters."  This  account  says,  "Let  there  be."  It 
does  not  say  who  accomplished  the  division;  it  is 
supposed  to  come  simply  by  the  order,  without  any- 
one to  do  it  but  God.  Anyhow  there  is  no  question 
about  the  making  of  the  firmament.  The  Bible 
says  God  made  it  and  "divided  the  waters  which 
were  under  the  firmament  from  the  waters  which 
were  above  the  firmament."  A  very  strange  thing 
about  it  is  that  the  account  reads  as  if  it  were  made 
after  it  was  put  in  the  midst  of  the  waters.  Then 
God  said,  "Let  the  waters  be  gathered  together  in 
one  place  and  let  the  day  land  appear."  The  prob- 
lem of  gathering  them  into  one  place  without  dis- 
turbing the  firmament  which  divided  them  into  two 
parts  must  have  been  a  difficult  one ;  but  everything 
fs  possible  with  God,  and  it  was  done.  "On  the 
fifth  day  God  said  let  there  be  lights — (right  here 
my  mind  cleared  up  a  little,  and  the  conviction  came 
that  of  course  God  was  talking  to  himself  when  he 
said,  "Let  there  be,"  etc.  I  don't  s«e  why  I  should 
have  been  puzzled  over  that).  He  said,  "Let  there 
be  lights  in  the  firmament."  Of  course  there  was 


22  VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES. 

no  danger  that  the  waters  under  or  above  the  fir- 
mament would  put  out  the  lights.  "The  greater 
light  to  rule  the  day  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the 
night,  and  he  made  the  stars  also."  Now  that  is 
very  interesting.  It  is  a  wonder  that  Mr.  Lambert 
did  not  let  the  inspired  volume  explain  the  creation, 
especially  as  it  was  already  written.  Even  the  men- 
tion of  book,  chapter,  and  verse  would  do,  as  Bibles 
are  accessible  to  every  one.  According  to  his  belief 
the  Bible  is  the  infallible  word  of  God,  of  which  he 
is  an  infallible  interpreter. 

But,  wait  a  minute.  Perhaps  it  is  as  the  infallible 
interpreter  that  he  explains  that  God  can  place  an 
eternal  act,  etc.  No,  that  cannot  be  either,  for  he 
does  not  settle  the  question  in  debate;  he  says  only 
that  Ingersoll  is  wrong.  The  only  affirmations  cf 
his  own  belief  that  he  settles  positively  are  that 
"God  did  not  exist  in  time  before  creation,"  and 
"God  is  alone  before  creation  was."  How  would 
that  sound  without  the  words  "in  time"?  But  it 
would  not  do  to  leave  them  out,  for  the  author's 
words  must  be  given  correctly.  Notice,  God  did 
not  exist  before  creation,  God  did  exist  before  crea- 
tion. 

"But  the  word  vacuum  has  a  gross  material 
sense,  and  you  used  it  for  a  purpose,"  said  Mr. 
Lambert. 

His  meaning  must  be  that  Ingersoll  used  it  in  a 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  23 

gross  material  sense  for  a  bad  purpose.  According 
to  the  dictionary  and  common  usage,  vacuum  is 
simply  an  empty  space ;  this  leaves  out  all  consider- 
ations of  arguments  of  scholars  as  to  whether  there 
can  be  any  empty  space  (vacuum)  or  not;  it  also 
leaves  out  the  seeming  contradiction  of  the  state- 
ment that  the  earth  before  creation  was  void  (vacu- 
um), and  yet  had  water  in  it,  and  also  had  the 
spirit  of  God  moving  on  the  face  of  the  waters.  I 
see  no  way  of  getting  a  hint  of  any  kind  of  bad  pur- 
pose for  which  the  word  vacuum  could  be  used. 
The  words  "gross  material  sense"  gives  no  light  on 
the  subject.  It  seems  as  if  Ingersoll  used  the  word 
just  as  Mr.  Lambert's  argument  shows  he  used  it, 
meaning  emptiness,  tho  Mr.  Lambert  thinks  he  is 
wrong,  for  "in  the  hypothesis  that  God  is  he  is 
something."  Well,  we  would  never  suppose  that 
Mr.  Lambert  took  the  gross  material  sense  to  mean 
God,  even  if  he  had  not  shown  that  he  believed  In- 
gersoll meant  simply  emptiness. 

While  weighing  in  my  mind  the  relative  merits  of 
two  courses  of  action  to  get  me  out  of  the  difficulty 
of  understanding  how  the  word  vacuum  could  be 
used  in  a  gross  material  sense :  whether  to  advertise 
for  an  explanation  of  this  difficult  passage,  or  to 
write  to  Mr.  Lambert  admitting  that  I  need  instruc- 
tion, any  suggestion  from  others  will  be  thankfully 
received. 


24  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

In  answer  to  the  greater  difficulty  in  the  second 
hypothesis,  Mr.  Lambert  says  that  it  is  a  pity  Inger- 
soll  didn't  take  time  and  space  to  weigh  those  diffi- 
culties. It  seems  to  me  his  arguments  preceding 
and  following  the  remark  are  exactly  on  those 
points,  while  Mr.  Lambert  contents  himself  with  re- 
iterating, by  way  of  answer,  that  our  minds  are 
finite ;  we  cannot  know  God  absolutely,  but  we  know 
with  certainty  that  he  is,  and  explaining  the  beliefs 
of  the  Gnostics  and  Pantheists. 

EQUAL    RIGHTS    OF    ALL    TO   EXPRESS 
THOTS  ON  THE  INFINITE. 

Ingersoll.  "What  we  know  of  the  infinite  is  al- 
most infinitely  limited,  but  little  as  we  know,  all 
have  an  equal  right  to  express  their  honest  thot." 

Lambert.  "Has  any  man  the  right,  common  sense 
being  the  judge,  to  talk  about  that  of  which  his 
knowledge  is  almost  infinitely  limited?  All  may 
have  an  equal  right  to  give  their  honest  thot,  but 
none  have  the  right  to  give  their  honest  thot  on  all 
subjects  and  under  all  circumstances.  Common 
sense  and  decency  forbid  it.  The  honesty  of  a  thot 
does  not  give  weight  or  importance  or  truth  to  it. 
If  so,  lunatics  would  be  the  best  of  reasoners,  for 
none  are  more  honest  in  their  thots  than  they. 
Thot  must  be  judged  with  reference  to  its  truth, 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  25 

and  not  with  reference  to  the  honesty  of  him  who 
thinks  it.  This  ple*a  of  honesty  in  thinking  is  a 
justification  of  every  error  and  crime,  for  we  must, 
in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  take  the  thinker's 
word  for  the  honesty  of  his  thot.  Guiteau,  if  we 
can  believe  him,  expressed  his  honest  thot  by  means 
of  an  English  bulldog  revolver,  and,  if  your  theory 
be  true,  he  had  a  right  to  do  it. 

"The  right  to  give  an  honest  thot  implies  the  right 
to  realize  that  thot  in  action  and  habit.  If  it  means 
less  than  this,  it  means  the  right  to  gabble  like  an 
idiot.  I  assume  that  it  is  not  this  latter  right  you 
claim.  Then,  in  claiming  the  right  to  give  your 
honest  thot,  you  claim  to  realize  that  thot  in  act  and 
practice,  and  cause  it,  as  far  as  you  can,  to  pene- 
trate, and  obtain  in  human  society.  If  your  claim 
for  liberty  of  thot  means  less  than  this,  it  is  the 
veriest  delusion. 

"I  take  it,  then,  that  in  claiming  the  right  to  give 
your  honest  thot,  you  claim  the  right  to  promulgate 
that  thot,  and  to  put  it  in  practice  in  the  affairs  of 
life.  Now,  in  view  of  this  claim  of  yours,  I  ask, 
by  what  right  you  interfere  with  the  slaveholder's 
honest  thot,  or  the  Mormon's  honest  thot?  Your 
plea  for  the  right  of  expressing  honest  thot  is  a 
miserable  pretense,  or  else  by  it  you  mean  that  those 
only  who  agree  with  you  have  the  right  of  express- 
ing it  in  word  or  action.  The  doctrines  of  our 


26  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

loquacious  liberals,  when  analyzed,  will  be  found  to 
mean  this  and  nothing  more." 

Comment.  Does  this  mean  that  Mr.  Ingersoll 
has  not  the  right  to  talk  because  his  knowledge  of 
the  infinite  is  limited,  while  it  is  different  with  his 
critic?  No;  for  he  admits  all  have  an  equal  right, 
tho  he  limits  it  to  certain  subjects  and  certain  times. 
The  correct  inference  might  be  that  Ingersoll  had  no 
right  to  express  his  thoughts  on  the  creation  of  the 
universe  in  a  public  debate;  but  carrying  that  out 
might  lead  some  people  to  believe  that  the  other  side 
could  be  barred.  Further  along  we  find  that  it  is 
only  the  truth  which  can,  by  right,  be  spoken.  Who 
is  to  be  the  judge  as  to  whether  it  is  the  truth  or 
not  before  it  is  expressed?  Should  it  be  privately 
submitted  to  an  opponent  before  it  is  published,  and 
suppressed  if  not  true,  in  the  opinion  of  the  ex- 
ponent of  opposite  views  ?  Would  Mr.  Lambert  be 
willing  to  submit  his  thots  to  this  text  and  abide  by 
the  judgment  given?  Perhaps  he  would  say  that 
everything  affecting  faith  and  morals  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  decision  of  an  infallible  teacher ;  al- 
most everything  has  some  bearing  on  morals  and 
the  church  has  shown  that  many  interesting  sub- 
jects are  inimical  to  faith;  witness,  geography,  as- 
tronomy, chemistry,  philosophy,  history,  literature, 
and  politics. 

Here  he  expresses  his  thot  that  according  to  Mr. 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  27 

Ingersoll's  theory  Guiteau  had  a  right  to  express 
his  thot  by  means  of  an  English  bulldog  revolver; 
if  not,  it  means  to  gabble  like  an  idiot.  Let  us 
shorten  that  for  a  clear  view.  Ingersoll's  idea  of 
the  right  to  express  thots  on  the  universe  means 
Guiteau  had  a  right  to  shoot  Garfield,  or  he  gabbles 
like  an  idiot,  because  the  right  to  express  thot  im- 
plies the  right  to  realize  it  in  action  and  habit.  Sup- 
posing that  is  an  honest  thot,  admitting  that  its  ele- 
gance or  inelegance  does  not  affect  the  undeniable 
right  of  expression,  its  truth  is  questionable,  and  if 
it  is  not  true  Mr.  Lambert's  own  rule  would  justify 
its  suppression.  But  let  it  stand  (against  him),  for 
liberals,  loquacious  or  reticent,  do  not  wish  to ,  re- 
strict thot  even  when  expressed  in  the  style  of  Mr. 
Lambert. 

Does  my  right  to  say  God  can  place  an  eternal 
act,  or  to  say  I  cannot  conceive  an  eternal  act,  carry 
with  it  the  right  of  assassination?  Many  people 
would  draw  a  line  between  an  expression  of  opinion 
on  a  self-existent  or  created  universe  and  murder, 
and  would  never  see  the  slightest  connection  be- 
tween expression  of  the  opinion  and  such  an  act. 

Let  us  hear  how  Mr.  Lambert  would  realize  any 
opinion  of  the  universe  in  action  and  habit.  He 
gives  his  opinion,  without  expressing  it  in  action 
and  habit,  that  Ingersoll's  "plea  for  the  right  of 
expressing  thot  is  a  miserable  pretense,  or  else  by  it 


28  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

you"  (Ingersoll)  "mean  that  only  those  who  agree 
with  you  have  the  right  of  expressing  it  in  word  or 
action.  The  doctrines  of  our  loquacious  liberals, 
when  analyzed,  will  be  found  to  mean  precisely  this 
and  nothing  more." 

In  short,  Mr.  Lambert's  argument  seems  to  be: 
People  do  not  have  the  right  to  express  thots  on  the 
universe,  for  that  right  carries  with  it  the  right  to 
murder.  Therefore,  he  has  no  right  to  give  the 
opinions  he  has  been  giving  or  any  other  opinions, 
for  he  has  no  right  to  murder.  What  does  he  really 
think  on  this  subject?  That  no  one  has  a  right  to 
have  thots? 

Can  onyone  else  interpret  the  expression  of  belief 
that  "all"  have  a  right  to  express  thot,  to  mean  "only 
those  agreeing  with  me"  have  the  right? 

As  for  loquacious  liberals,  if  there  is  one  liberal 
who  fills  pages  with  obscure,  unmeaning,  contradic- 
tory dissertations,  who  writes  paragraphs  of  scorn- 
ful vituperation  of  a  blameless  character,  leaving 
the  subject  he  pretends  to  discuss  untouched,  let 
him  be  discountenanced  by  other  liberals,  and  let 
his  friends  try  to  lead  him  to  better  ways. 

DESIGN  ARGUMENT. 

Lambert.  "As  Mr.  Black  did  not  advance  this 
argument  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  why  it  was 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  29 

introduced  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  unless  it  was  to  give  us 
a  specimen  of  his  ability  in  the  way  of  metaphysical 
skyrocketing." 

Comment.  Mr.  Black  did  advance  the  argument 
that  the  existence  of  God  was  proved  by  the  design 
of  the  universe.  (See  page  35  of  the  Ingersoll- 
Black  discussion.) 

Quoting,  "It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  universe 
was  designed,  and  therefore  there  must  be  a  de- 
signer." This  man  who  says  in  his  introduction 
this  is  not  a  subject  to  make  merry  over,  and  that  the 
orator  of  applause  and  laughter  stops  his  clatter  and 
pauses  in  his  ribaldry,  breaks  the  quotation  in 
two  to  say,  "Why  not,  if  all  have  a  right  to  give 
their  honest  thot?" 

Everyone  will  understand  that  this  is  a  specimen 
of  Mr.  Lambert's  wit,  which  is  not  intended  to  be 
a  part  of  the  argument;  it  is  not  expected  that  any- 
one would  take  the  meaning  to  be  that  the  right  to 
speak  any  belief  was  denied,  for  it  is  plain  that  "it 
will  not  do  to  say"  is  equivalent  to  "it  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  say"  without  proof  that  there  is  a  designer. 

He  then  goes  on  to  answer,  certainly  there  must 
be  proofs,  and  they  are  found  in  works  of  theology 
and  philosophy;  that  it  is  Mr.  Ingersoll's  place  to 
answer  those  proofs,  and  not  very  cunningly  leave 
the  inference  that  no  such  proofs  exist;  if  Mr.  In- 


3O  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

gersoll  was  ignorant  of  those  proofs  he  should  have 
informed  himself. 

Now,  tho  Mr.  Black  said  it  would  be  a  waste  of 
time  and  space  to  enumerate  proofs  that  the  uni- 
verse was  created  by  a  preexistent  and  self-con- 
scious Being,  and  he  would  assume  that  all  would 
have  sense  and  reason  enough  to  see  that  it  could 
not  have  been  designed  without  a  Designer,  and 
tho  he  did  not  give  any  proofs,  Mr.  Ingersoll  did 
answer  what  has  been  given  by  other  authors  as 
proofs,  beginning,  however,  with  the  above,  which 
is  here  quoted  and  commented  on  in  such  an  extra- 
ordinary manner. 

What  would  be  said  of  anyone  who  should  an- 
swer in  any  but  a  religious  argument  that  it  would 
be  a  waste  of  time  to  give  proofs?  In  anything 
but  religion  no  man  would  think  of  relying  on  mere 
assertion  to  combat  another's  opinion,  admitting 
that  he  would  attempt  no  proof.  And  Mr.  Lambert 
comes  into  the  discussion  reiterating  the  dogma  un- 
der discussion  by  way  of  answer  to  reasons  for  dis- 
belief in  the  dogma. 

He  denies  that  Christians  say  so  wonderful  a 
thing  as  man  must  have  had  a  creator ;  but  they  do 
say  it,  and  the  theological  books  dealing  with  the 
subject  that  I  have  so  far  seen  give  that  as  a  rea- 
son. But  Mr.  Lambert  calls  it  childish  nonsense. 
He  says  the  proof  that  all  things  were  created  is 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  31 

not  in  their  being  wonderful,  but  that  they  exist. 
Of  course  he  does  not  mean  that  God  does  not  ex- 
ist. He  says  in  another  place  that  man  is  curious 
and  wonderful  because  he  exists  and  is  finite.  He 
says  "the  idea  of  a  self -existent,  eternal  designer  ex- 
cludes the  idea  of  a  design  prior  to  or  independent 
of  him.  This  is  so  self-evident  that  it  needs  only  to 
be  stated."  There  is  the  same  assumption  of  the  de- 
signer. 

To  show  that  everything  had  to  have  a  designer 
but  God  he  says :  "The  universe  is  the  eternal  idea 
of  God  realized  in  time  and  space  by  the  creative 
act."  That  sentence  is  really  wonderful.  I  pre- 
sume the  subjects  of  the  priest  not  only  look  upon 
it  as  wonderful  but  accept  it  as  the  statement  of  a 
profound  "Truth."  I  wonder  if  they  pretend  to 
understand  it?  How  many  could  remember  that 
as  they  could  less  ingenious  contrivances  ? 

But  I  find  I  haven't  given  Ingersoll's  words, 
which  are  here  criticized: 

Ingersoll.  "I  know  as  little  as  any  one  else  about 
the  plan  of  the  universe;  and  as  to  the  'design'  I 
know  just  as  little.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the 
universe  was  designed,  and  therefore  there  must  be 
a  designer.  There  must  first  be  proof  that  it  was 
'designed.'  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  universe 
has  a  'plan'  and  then  assert  that  there  must  have 
been  an  infinite  maker.  The  idea  that  the  design 


32  VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES. 

must  have  had  a  beginning  and  that  a  designer  need 
not,  is  a  simple  expression  of  human  ignorance. 
We  find  a  watch,  and  we  say:  'So  curious  and 
wonderful  a  thing  must  have  had  a  maker/  We 
find  the  watchmaker,  and  we  say,  'So  curious  and 
wonderful  a  thing  as  man  must  have  had  a  maker.' 
We  find  God,  and  then  we  say,  'He  is  so  wonderful 
that  he  must  not  have  had  a  maker.'  In  other 
words,  all  things  a  little  wonderful  must  have  been 
created,  but  it  is  possible  for  something  to  be  so 
wonderful  that  it  always  existed.  One  would  sup- 
pose that  just  as  the  wonder  increased  the  necessity 
for  a  creator  increased,  because  it  is  the  wonder  of 
the  thing  that  suggests  the  idea  of  creation.  Is  it 
possible  that  a  designer  exists  from  all  eternity 
without  design  ?  Was  there  no  design  in  having  an 
infinite  designer?  For  me  it  is  hard  to  see  the  de- 
sign in  earthquakes  and  pestilences.  It  is  somewhat 
difficult  to  discern  the  design  or  the  benevolence  in 
so  making  the  world  that  billions  of  animals  live 
only  on  the  agonies  of  others.  The  justice  of 
God  is  not  visible  to  me  in  the  history  of  this  world. 
When  I  think  of  the  suffering  and  death,  the  pov- 
erty and  crime,  of  the  cruelty  and  malice,  of  the 
heartlessness  of  this  'design'  and  'plan'  wher« 
beak  and  claw  and  tooth  tear  and  rend  the  quiver- 
ing flesh  of  weakness  and  despair,  I  can  not  con- 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  33 

vince  myself  that  it  is  the  result  of  infinite  wisdom, 
benevolence,  and  justice." 

Lambert.  In  answer  to  the  remark  about  the 
plan  of  earthquakes,  etc.,  Mr.  Lambert,  to  illustrate 
Mr.  Ingersoll's  egotism,  tells  a  story  of  a  boy  whose 
eye  was  hurt  by  a  cinder  from  a  passing  locomotive. 
He  asks  himself  what  design  or  plan  a  great  corpo- 
ration could  have  in  throwing  a  cinder  into  his  eye, 
and  represents  the  boy  as  saying  it  is  difficult  for 
him  to  see  design  or  benevolence  in  it.  "Who  will 
say  that  boy  was  not  a  philosopher  and  an  egotist, 
or  that  a  fortune  does  not  await  him  when  he  is  old 
enough  to  take  the  lecture  field?" 

Comment.  As  the  great  corporation  has  never 
been  supposed  to  be  infinite  and  to  plan  the  uni- 
verse you  see  how  far  he  had  to  bring  his  anec- 
dote to  connect  it  with  the  subject  and  bring  in 
insulting  insinuations.  Not  seeming  to  care  that 
he  is  now  at  work  against  the  design  argument 
which  he  has  been  upholding  he  proceeds  as  ?f 
Ingersoll  were  advocating  the  doctrine  he — Lam- 
bert— has,  for  the  time,  abandoned.  He  calls  upon 
Ingersoll  to  prove  that  God  designed  suffering  be- 
fore attributing  it  to  him.  "You  should  be  just, 
even  to  God."  This  follows  immediately  after  his 
quotation  where  Ingersoll  argues  that  God  could 
not  have  designed  suffering. 


34  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

LAMBERT   EXPLAINS   THAT   SUFFERING 
IS     NOT     DESIGNED,     IT     RESULTS 
FROM  CRIME— CRIME   THE  RE- 
SULT OF  LIBERTY. 

Lambert.  "Crime  is  the  result  of  human  liberty 
— tho  not  a  necessary  result — and  suffering  is  the 
result  of  crime."  He  illustrates  his  argument  on 
liberty  and  crime  and  suffering  by  saying  ship- 
wrecked mariners  must  not  blame  the  captain  when 
the  shipwreck  is  the  result  of  disobedience  to  his 
command. 

Comment.  As  a  rule  shipwrecks  are  not  the  re- 
sult of  disobedience  to  the  captain's  commands,  but 
of  the  power  of  wind  and  wave  entirely  beyond 
the  control  of  anyone. 

Lambert.  "To  those  who  see  in  man's  nature 
and  destiny  nothing  higher  than  that  of  the  grass- 
hopper, or  the  potato  bug  .  .  .  there  must  be  some- 
thing inexplicable  in  the  sufferings  of  this  life." 

Comment.  Here  he  is  supposed  to  indicate  In- 
gersoll,  as  he  is  the  subject  of  criticism,  but  the 
designation  is  too  unsuitable  to  give  any  concern 
to  the  friends  of  the  high-minded  poet  whose  ob- 
ject in  life  was  progress  and  the  happiness  of  others. 

Suffering  is  inexplicable  to  those  only  who  be- 
lieve it  was  designed.  Mr.  Lambert  would  say  that 
God  did  not  design  it,  but  he  says  God  designed  the 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  35 

universe;  at  any  rate,  that  is  the  only  thing  to  be 
made  out  of  the  pages  before  us,  not  forgetting 
the  definition,  "The  universe  is  the  eternal  idea  of 
God  realized  in  time  and  space  by  the  creative  act." 
(Consulting  the  text  every  few  words  kept  me 
from  ending  that,  "expressed  in  words.") 

Universe  is  the  whole  thing,  earth,  sun,  etc. — 
which  must  include  the  whole  of  the  earth — every- 
thing on  it,  of  course.  If  God  did  not  design  every- 
thing, who  did  design  the  part  that  he  did  not? 
Evil  is  especially  indicated  in  Isaiah  xlvi,  7,  as 
being  the  creation  of  God,  and  it  is  given  in  his 
own  words,  "I  create  evil.  I,  the  Lord,  do  these 
things."  The  opinion  that  suffering  is  the  result 
of  crime  is  not  sustained,  even  in  the  one  instance 
given  by  Mr.  Lambert.  It  is  admitted  that  crime 
is  sometimes  the  cause  of  suffering  to  the  guilty 
one  who  commits  the  crime,  but  it  is  also  the  cause 
of  the  suffering  of  the  innocent  as  well  as  the 
guilty.  Besides  crime  there  are  unavoidable  acci- 
dents, and  diseases  contracted  thro  no  fault  of  the 
sufferers. 

"Crime  is  the  result  of  human  liberty — tho  not 
the  necessary  result — and  suffering  is  the  result  of 
crime,"  says  this  Catholic  theologian.  "Evils  that 
are  the  results  of  man's  perversions  of  liberty  can 
not  be  attributed  to  the  design  of  God." 

All  this  about  crime's  being  the  result  of  liberty, 


36  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

perversion  of  liberty,  man's  free  agency,  seems  to 
me  to  be  the  filling  of  space  left  by  the  absence  of 
reasons.  Do  people  ever  say  of  any  particular 
crime  that  it  is  the  result  of  liberty?  Say  a  man 
shoots  another  because  he  is  angry  or  wishes  to 
rob  him,  no  one  would  ever  think  of  calling  the 
crime  the  result  of  liberty,  or  of  the  perversion  of 
liberty,  but  of  the  ugly  temper  of  the  criminal ;  the 
loss  of  his  liberty  will  be  the  result  of  the  crime. 

Mr.  Lambert  does  not  say  God  planned  the  good 
and  the  Devil  sometimes  overcame  the  good  with 
evil,  or  that  God's  plan  was  upset  in  any  way.  We 
gather  the  idea  (think  of  an  Ingersoll  or  a  huckle- 
berry and  have  a  good,  uproarious  laugh)  from 
Mr.  Lambert's  arguments  that  the  universe  would 
have  gone  on  all  right  if  that  pestiferous  quality, 
liberty,  had  been  left  out  of  the  plan. 

Lambert  (in  chapter  v,  "pursuing"  his  victim 
"with  cold,  relentless  cruelty,"  as  the  preface  has 
it),  starts  out  with  the  idea  that  the  victim  can 
not  see  on  account  of  "intellectual  staphyloma"; 
that  he  puts  his  judgment  above  God's  and  attempts 
to  assume  his  place;  "men  have  been  kindly,  but 
firmly  consigned  to  insane  asylums  for  such  phil- 
osophy" ;  that  he  should  doubt  his  powers  of  vision, 
which  is  "difficult  to  a  man  of  almost  infinite  self- 
assertive  capacity,  but  is  wisdom";  accuses  him  of 
attributing  death,  suffering,  crime,  cruelty  and 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  WORKS.  37 

malice  to  the  plan;  tells  him  "it  is  unphilosophical 
to  attribute  to  a  plan  objectionable  features  when 
you  confess  ignorance  of  that  plan." 

Comment.  The  brief  statement  by  Mr.  Ingersoll 
of  his  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  belief  in  the 
eternity  of  the  Universe  is  more  reasonable  than 
the  belief  that  it  was  designed,  was  too  plain  to 
be  misunderstood  by  anyone.  Does  his  cold,  re- 
lentless dissector  (see  preface)  represent  him  as 
arguing  that  God  designed  the  misery  of  the  world 
and  was  therefore  unjust,  to  give  the  impression 
to  the  people  of  his  church  that  he  had  advo- 
cated the  doctrine  which  his  argument  showed  he 
questioned  and  doubted — did  he  so  represent  In- 
gersoll as  accusing  God  of  cruelty  and  injustice, 
thinking  they  would  look  at  it  as  he  guided  them 
in  spite  of  Inger soil's  words  which  Lambert  him- 
self quotes?  It  seems  he  did  think  they  would, 
and  the  chances  are  that  he  was  right  in  so  think- 
ing. Ingersoll  could  not  fail  to  be  understood,  but 
the  subjects  of  the  church  are  barred  from  seeing 
his  writings  unless  given  by  an  author  who  pub- 
lishes them  under  the  Imprimatur  of  the  church. 
It  is  not  enough  for  the  powers  of  the  church  that 
they  should  be  allowed  to  present  their  own  case 
in  any  way  they  choose,  having  their  own  argu- 
ments— or  anything  they  might  wish  to  have  in 
place  of  arguments — side  by  side  with  the  work 


38  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

they  do  not  wish  their  subjects  to  accept,  or  even 
before  it ;  they  do  not  allow  anything  they  suspect 
might  prove  subversive  of  any  of  the  dogmas  or 
practices  of  their  religion  to  be  submitted  to  the 
judgment  of  their  subjects.  The  sacred  congre- 
gation of  the  Holy  Office  is  still  at  work.  The 
present  "Father  of  his  country"  is  more  determined 
than  was  his  predecessor  in  Galileo's  time  to  crush 
liberty  and  to  keep  intelligence  and  progress  away 
from  the  world. 

Mr.  Black  avoids  the  argument  against  design 
of  the  cruelty  and  suffering  of  the  world,  saying, 
"We  have  neither  jurisdiction  nor  capacity  to  re- 
judge  the  justice  of  God."  Ingersoll  notices  this, 
and  answers : 

Ingersoll.  "In  other  words,  we  have  no  right  to 
think  upon  this  subject,  no  right  to  examine  the 
questions  most  vitally  affecting  human  kind.  We 
are  simply  to  accept  the  ignorant  statements  of 
the  barbarian  dead.  This  question  cannot  be 
settled  by  saying  that  it  would  be  a  mere  waste 
of  time  and  space  to  enumerate  the  proofs  which 
skow  that  the  universe  was  created  by  a  pre- 
existent  and  self-conscious  Being.  The  time  and 
space  should  have  been  'wasted'  and  the  proofs 
should  have  been  enumerated.  These  'proofs'  are 
what  the  wisest  and  greatest  are  trying  to  find. 
Logic  is  not  satisfied  with  assertion.  It  cares  noth- 


39 

ing  for  the  opinions  of  the  'great' — nothing  for  the 
prejudices  of  the  many,  and  least  of  all  for  tht 
superstitions  of  the  dead.  In  the  world  of  science 
a  fact  is  a  legal  tender;  assertions  and  miracles 
are  spurious  coins.  We  have  the  right  to  rejudge 
the  justice  even  of  a  god.  No  one  should  throw 
away  his  reason — the  fruit  of  all  experience.  It  is 
the  intellectual  capital  of  the  soul;  the  only  light, 
the  only  guide,  and  without  it  the  brain  becomes 
the  palace  of  an  idiot  king,  attended  by  a  retinue 
of  thieves  and  hypocrites." 

Lambert.  Stating  a  truth  is  not  avoiding  a 
question;  "you,  however,  avoid  the  question  by 
not  admitting  Black's  proposition,  or  disproving 
it.  It  is  the  hinge  on  which  the  whole  argument 
turns,  and  you  should  not  have  avoided  it."  He 
then  goes  on  with  more  than  ten  pages  of  com- 
ment on  Ingersoll's  reasoning  in  disproof  (which 
is  cool,  as  he  just  charged  Ingersoll  with  avoiding 
the  question).  He  restates  Mr.  Black's  proposi- 
tion about  rejudging  the  infinite;  he  says:  "The 
finite  cannot  be  the  measure  of  the  infinite.  God's 
justice  is  infinite.  The  human  mind  is  finite.  Hence 
the  latter  cannot  be  the  measure  of  the  former — in 
other  words,  wt  have  not  the  capacity,  and,  for  a 
stronger  reason,  not  the  jurisdiction  to  rejudge  the 
justice  of  God,"  and  continues,  "This  is  the  clear 
issue  Mr.  Black  made  with  you,  but  instead  of 


4O  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

meeting  it  squarely,  as  candor  would  dictate,  you 
ptoceed  to  avoid  it  by  misstating  it.  Thus  you 
say :  'In  other  words,  we  have  no  right  to  think 
upon  this  subject — '  This  is  neatly  done.  But  it 
will  not  succeed.  Mr.  Black  did  not  say  we  have 
no  right  to  think.  He  said  we  have  no  right  to 
judge,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  any  adult,  whose  in- 
tellect is  not  below  the  average,  will  see  a  differ- 
ence between  thinking  and  judging.  You  honor  the 
truth  in  Mr.  Black's  proposition  when  you  try  to 
torture  it  out  of  shape  before  you  answer  it." 

Comment.  Judge  is  a  definition  of  think,  accord- 
ing to  Webster.  Can  we  judge,  or  decide  that  we 
must  not  judge,  without  thinking?  Mr.  Ingersoll 
expressed  thots  in  the  examination  of  the  subject; 
then  Mr.  Black  spoke  very  decidedly  to  the  effect 
that  we  must  let  that  subject  alone.  Mr.  Lambert 
seems  to  presume  on  his  people's  not  thinking,  ex- 
amining or  judging  when  he  speaks.  Torturing 
the  truth  out  of  shape  before  answering  it!  Mr. 
Lambert  knows  that  he  himself  is  doing  that  very 
thing.  What  Mr.  Ingersoll  did  was  to  state  what 
the  proposition  necessarily  involved  and  that  state- 
ment was  a  convincing  answer.  If  Mr.  Black  thot 
we  had  neither  the  capacity  nor  jurisdiction 
to  judge  (rejudge  must  mean  judge),  that  was 
what  he  thot  a  truth.  Mr.  Ingersoll,  not  looking 
on  it  as  a  truth,  stated  its  meaning  in  words  show- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  41 

ing  that  if  it  were  a  truth  it  would  suppress  the 
right  of  thinking  and  examining.  No  capacity 
means  we  are  not  able  to  do  anything  with  the  sub- 
ject. No  jurisdiction  means  no  right  to  do  any- 
thing with  it.  Is  not  the  necessary  conclusion  then 
that  Mr.  Black  thinks  we  must  let  it  alone?  That 
we  have  no  right  to  think  on  the  subject?  No  right 
to  examine  the  subject?  Think  and  examine  are 
a  little  different  in  meaning,  and  therefore  Mr. 
Ingersoll  used  both  words,  as  both  meanings  are 
involved. 

I  am  ashamed  to  go  on  so  long  about  words  that 
all  can  understand  for  themselves  if  they  read 
them  in  the  connection  in  which  they  are  used,  but 
the  author  of  the  "Notes"  prints  whole  pages  which 
lead  one  to  think  he  was  trained  to  argue  with  a 
table-leg,  and  his  whole  concern  seems  to  be  to 
create  as  much  diversion  as  possible  from  points 
of  argument. 

Finishing  the  sentence  he  began  to  quote — "no 
right  to  examine  the  questions  vitally  affecting  hu- 
man kind" — he  goes  on  in  this  characteristic 
fashion : 

Lambert.  "There  you  are  again.  This  is  the 
veriest  kind  of  verbal  thimble-rigging.  Mr.  Black 
did  not  say  we  had  no  right  to  examine  these 
questions.  He  said  we  had  no  right  to  rejudge 
the  justice  of  God.  You  need  not  be  told  that 


42  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

there  is  a  difference  between  examining  and 
judging.  I  cannot  believe  in  view  of  your  knowl- 
edge of  the  English  language  that  you  change 
these  words  without  a  purpose,  even  though  you 
hold  that  'candor  is  the  courage  of  the  soul.' " 

Comment.  Next  we  have  a  paragraph,  lengthy 
in  proportion  to  its  contents.  "We  neither  ac- 
cept the  statements  of  the  barbarian  dead,  nor 
the  ignorant  statements  of  the  atheistic  living; 
the  question  between  Mr.  Black  and  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  is  whether  the  finite  can  judge  the  infinite." 

The  immediate  question  between  those  gentle- 
man was,  whether  an  infinite  intelligence  created 
the  evil  in  the  universe.  Mr.  Black  and  Mr.  Lam- 
bert content  themselves  with  the  affirmation  that 
an  infinite  intelligence  did;  Mr.  Lambert  brings 
forward  the  further  information  that  liberty  is 
responsible  for  the  evil,  but  as  he  declares  that 
the  infinite  created  the  whole  universe — perhaps 
at  the  same  time  creating  himself — the  first  af- 
firmation cannot  be  affected  by  the  other  one. 

The  branch  of  the  subject  put  forth  by  Mr. 
Black  in  place  of  an  argument  on  the  main  ques- 
tion was  also  considered,  Mr.  Black  and  Mr. 
Lambert  acting  upon  their  right  to  judge  that 
Mr.  Ingersoll  had  no  right  to  judge. 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  43 

ASSERTIONS  AND  MIRACLES. 

Taking  up  "Logic  is  not  satisfied  with  asser- 
tion" the  "Notes"  proceed  with  much  pomp  to 
correct  the  "blunder"  of  "confounding"  logic  and 
reason. 

Reasoning  must  be  logical.  There  is  no  logic 
in  mere  assertion.  Ingersoll  is  right  in  spite  of 
the  long  lecture  which  the  author  calls  "care- 
ful analysis." 

Ingersoll's  sentence,  "In  the  world  of  science 
a  fact  is  a  legal  tender,"  is  referred  to  on  page 
56  as  "meaningless  verbiage."  Was  that  char- 
acterization suggested  by  this  concise  sentence 
or  by  pages  50-54  of  the  "Notes,"  from  which  I 
will  copy  a  specimen?  A  note  says  it  is  from 
Brownson's  Quarterly  Review.  I  don't  know 
whether  Mr.  Lambert  is  the  author  or  not,  but 
the  style  seems  to  be  according  to  his  own  heart : 

"I  allow  you  to  doubt  all  things  if  you  wish, 
till  you  come  to  the  point  where  doubt  denies 
itself.  Doubt  is  an  act  of  intelligence;  only  an 
intelligent  agent  can  doubt.  It  as  much  de- 
mands intellect  to  doubt  as  it  does  to  believe — 
to  deny  as  to  affirm.  Universal  doubt  is,  there- 
fore, an  impossibility,  for  doubt  cannot,  if  it 
would,  doubt  the  intelligence  that  doubts,  since 
to  doubt  that  would  be  to  doubt  itself.  You  can 


44  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

not  doubt  that  you  doubt,  and  then,  if  you  doubt, 
you  know  that  you  doubt,  and  there  is  one  thing, 
at  least,  you  do  not  doubt,  namely,  that  you 
doubt.  To  doubt  the  intelligence  that  doubts, 
would  be  to  doubt  that  you  doubt,  for,  without 
intelligence,  there  can  be  no  more  doubt  than 
belief.  Intelligence  then,  you  must  assert,  for 
without  intelligence  you  cannot  even  deny  in- 
telligence, and  the  denial  of  intelligence  by  in- 
telligence contradicts  itself,  and  affirms  intelli- 
gence by  the  very  act  of  denying  it.  Doubt, 
then,  as  much  as  you  will,  you  must  still  affirm 
intelligence  as  the  condition  of  doubting,  or  of 
asserting  the  possibility  of  doubt,  for  what  is 
not,  cannot  act."  The  quotation  takes  up  two 
more  pages  of  the  "Notes."  It  follows  two  para- 
graphs sustaining  Mr.  Black  in  not  taking  time 
and  space  to  give  proofs,  saying:  "Mr.  Black  is 
not  justified  by  your  ignorance"  in  doing  so; 
that  the  wisest  and  greatest,  and  "the  world  do 
not  agree  with  you,"  and  more  to  the  effect  that 
Mr.  Ingersoll  stands  alone,  in  words  we  look 
upon  as  mildly  insulting — for  this  author. 

But,  as  Mr.  Lambert  is  not  shut  off  by  the 
North  American  Review  as  Mr.  Black  was  (that 
is  what  he  says),  he  will  "produce  the  argument 
of  a  philosopher  for  the  existence  of  God.  I  do 
not  deem  it  necessary,  or  logically  called  for, 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  45 

just  here,  to  do  this;  but  as  it  may  prove  in- 
structive to  you  I  give  it."  Then  follows  the  ar- 
gument from  Brownson's  Review,  of  which  a 
specimen  was  given.  Readers  may  not  be 
charmed  with  its  appearance,  but  I  do  wish  they 
would  read  all  of  it,  not  only  all  of  the  argu- 
ment but  the  whole  of  his  book,  "Notes  on  Inger- 
soll." 

In  his  "answer"  to  "In  the  world  of  science, 
a  fact  is  a  legal  tender,"  he  says  you  must  dem- 
onstrate a  fact,  it  must  be  established  as  such 
before  it  is  a  legal  tender;  "What  are  facts?" 
Ingersoll  and  Christians  do  not  agree,  says  Lam- 
bert. "What  you  intended,  then,  as  a  wise  say- 
ing has  no  practical  sense  in  it.  But  for  those 
who  like  that  sort  of  thing,  it  is  about  the  sort 
of  thing  they  like." 

Doubtless  many  think  it  not  worth  while  to 
take  the  trouble  of  noticing  such  trifling.  By 
way  of  apology  I  will  copy  two  of  the  notices  of 
the  "Notes"  from  Mr.  Lacy's  Appendix  to  his 
reply : 

"The  author  completely  turns  the  tables  on  the 
doughty  Colonel.  We  commend  the  volume  to 
all  who  would  see  the  assumptions  and  crudi- 
ties and  mistakes  of  Ingersoll  turned  inside  out, 
upside  down,  end  for  end,  and  over  and  over." 


46  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

— Chicago  Star  and  Covenant  (leading  Univer- 
salist  paper  in  the  Western  states). 

"An  earnest  and  keen  reasoner.  The  pam- 
phlet should  have  many  readers." — New  York 
Herald. 

It  may  be  that  the  writers  of  the  above  never 
read  the  work  they  praise,  but  I  believe  there 
are  many  who  have  been  led  to  think  it  contains 
an  array  of  brilliant  and  unanswerable  argu- 
ments, many  probably  taking  the  word  of  others 
for  their  opinions. 

In  answer  to  Mr.  Black  as  to  our  having  no 
right  to  consider  the  question  of  design,  Inger- 
soll  said,  "No  one  should  throw  away  kis  rea- 
son— the  fruit  of  all  experience."  Mr.  Lambert 
remarks  for  the  benefit  of  that  part  of  his  audi- 
ence which  can  hear  his  opponent's  arguments 
only  as  stated  by  the  "Father,"  "Your  purpose 
here  is  to  leave  the  impression  that,  to  be  a 
Christian,  a  man  must  throw  away  his  reason." 
The  indication  of  this  purpose  is  in  the  words 
of  Mr.  Lambert  only.  It  is  not  shown  anywhere 
in  the  argument — unless  we  get  it  from  Mr. 
Black's  idea  that  we  cannot  "rejudge."  No  words 
of  Ingersoll's  could  be  so  construed. 

Lambert  says  that  when  Ingersoll  says  reason 
is  the  result  of  experience,  and  then  says  it  is 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  47 

the  intellectual  capital  of  the  soul,  the  only  light, 
etc.,  he  contradicts  himself. 

If  he  had  said  it  is  the  capital  of  the  soul  and 
this  capital  is  derived  from  experience,  it  would 
mean  the  same  thing,  and  the  expression  would 
have  been  no  plainer  to  anybody  . 

Mr.  Lambert's  "But  mind  and  reason  are  iden- 
tical. Reason  is  the  mind  in  action"  (leaving  out 
the  small  criticism  that  they  contradict  each 
other),  provokes  the  thot:  Must  not  reason  on 
religion;  mind  not  in  action  on  that  subject. 

He  continues  the  paragraph,  which  ends  the 
chapter,  in  his  usual  style,  thus: 

Lambert.  "A  result  is  an  effect,  and  an  effect 
cannot  be  prior  to  its  cause.  It  follows,  then, 
from  your  own  definition,  that  reason  is  not  and 
cannot  be  the  only  light  or  guide  of  the  soul. 
But  even  if  you  had  not  contradicted  yourself 
egregiously,  your  assertion  that  reason  is  the 
only  light,  etc.,  cannot  be  accepted,  for  it  is  a 
pitiable  begging  of  the  whole  question  at  issue 
— a  denial  of  revelation  as  a  guide  to  reason,  and 
this  you  will  see  is  the  only  point  between  you 
and  the  Christian.  Your  statement  thus  cun- 
ningly assumes  as  proved,  that  which  you  set 
out  to  prove.  This  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of 
your  method  in  debate.  It  is  on  this  account 


4o  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

that  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  analyzing  al- 
most every  assertion  you  make." 

Comment.  According  to  this,  revelation  is 
the  guide  to  reason.  It  is  very  strange  that  it 
guided  him  so  far  away  from  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  in  the  explanation  of  the  universe; 
and  strange,  too,  in  what  different  directions  it 
guides  different  people. 

THE  COMMANDMENTS. 

In  commenting  on  "Of  course  it  is  admitted 
that  most  of  the  commandments  are  wise  and 
just,"  he  asks  if  it  is  "candid  to  make  a  limita- 
tion so  indefinite  as  to  leave  you  room  to  dodge? 
Why  not  specify  which,  if  any,  are  not  wise  and 
just?"  But  the  very  next  sentence  to  the  one 
criticized  does  specify  the  one  against  graven 
images,  and  after  it,  in  the  same  paragraph,  a 
part  of  the  loth,  placing  woman  on  an  exact 
equality  with  other  property,  is  specified.  Mr. 
Lambert  fills  a  chapter  in  quoting  and  criticiz- 
ing the  two  objections,  beginning  the  last  para- 
graph thus:  "You  argue  like  a  man  who  places 
much  confidence  in  the  credulity  or  gullibility  of 
his  readers,  and  imagines  that  while  a  few  may 
investigate  and  know  the  truth,  the  larger  num- 
ber will  take  his  word  for  it  and  inquire  no  fur- 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  49 

ther.  This  policy  shows  a  good  knowledge  of 
human  nature,  for  the  average  man  is  not  over- 
burdened with  the  faculty  of  discrimination" ! 

He  says  the  one  against  graven  images  could 
not  be  the  "death  of  art  unless  it  forbade  art." 
But  Ingersoll  spoke  of  the  effect  on  art.  Mr. 
Lambert  says  Ingersoll  suppressed  the  explana- 
tion of  the  command  that  you  must  not  worship 
the  graven  images,  but  the  command  says  you 
must  not  make  them,  and  says  also  afterwards 
that  you  must  not  worship  them.  That  many 
of  the  early  theologians  thot  that  statues  and 
paintings  were  forbidden  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  religious  zealots  destroyed  them  for  many 
years.  For  centuries  the  Christians  had  much 
trouble  over  this. 

The  Bible  says  God  forbade  the  making  of 
images  (Ex.  xx,  4;  Lev.  xxvi,  i ;  Deut.  xvi,  21-22). 
In  Exodus  and  Leviticus  we  have  both  com- 
mands, in  Deuteronomy  it  doesn't  say  anything 
about  worshiping. 

This  priest,  who,  when  in  his  least  bitterly 
insulting  moods,  refers  to  Ingersoll's  "conceit," 
instructs  the  man  he  criticizes,  saying,  "I  will 
give  you  a  definition  of  art,  which  will,  if  you 
study  it  well,  prevent  you  in  future  from  show- 
ing your  ears  to  quiet,  thotful  men,  who  have 


50  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

gone  somewhat  deeper  than  you  have  into  phi- 
losophy and  theology." 

That  a  knowledge  of  philosophy  and  theology 
is  necessary  to  an  understanding  of  the  meaning 
of  the  word  art  may  be  new  to  many. 

Notice  above  that  the  conceit  is  imputed  to 
Ingersoll. 

Lambert.  "Poetry  is  an  art — and  where  can 
we  find  more  sublime  specimens  of  it  than  in 
the  Psalms  of  David,  the  Book  of  Job,  the  ma- 
jestic flights  of  Isaiah,  and  the  soul-piercing 
threnodies  of  Jeremiah?  Here  we  have  the  high- 
est genius  and  the  highest  art,  and  yet  because 
they  did  not  daub  lecherous  pictures  on  canvas, 
or  cut  naked  Venuses  out  of  stone,  they  were 
not  artists.  The  commandment  was  the  death 
of  art!— trash." 

Comment.  Ingersoll  did  mention  painting  and 
sculpture,  but  Lambert's  readers  should  know 
that  any  indelicate  suggestions  were  not  made 
by  Ingersoll.  What  a  revelation  of  character 
does  this  priest  present  to  people  of  the  least 
refinement  who  have  had  the  happiness  of  see- 
ing glorious  pictures  and  beautiful,  pure,  statues. 

Criticizing  Mr.  Ingersoll's  objection  to  the 
putting  of  woman  on  an  exact  equality  with 
other  property,  he  says,  because  they  are  for- 
bidden alike  that  does  not  place  crimes  on  the 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  51 

same  plane,  for  the  penalty  may  not  be  the  same ; 
that  Ingersoll  would  not  have  been  satisfied  if 
the  commandment  hadn't  forbidden  coveting  an- 
other's wife;  says  "You  are  like  the  Frenchman 
who  was  to  be  hanged,  neither  a  long  nor  a 
short  rope  would  suit  him."  (I  presume  the  wri- 
ter did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  select  an 
illustration;  he  must  keep  a  pile  ready  at  hand, 
and  in  this  case  took  the  one  that  happened  to 
be  on  top.)  But  he  has  another  argument;  he 
tells  Mr.  Ingersoll  that  as  a  lawyer  he  ought  to 
know  that  the  distinction  between  objects  for- 
bidden or  protected  by  law  is  in  the  penalty; 
that  the  law  sends  a  fifty-cent  thief  to  jail,  and 
the  one-hundred-dollar  thief  to  state's  prison; 
as  the  wife  stealer  had  a  heavier  penalty  than 
the  ox  stealer  it  did  not  put  them  on  an  exact 
equality. 

But  Mr.  Lambert  should  see  that  the  fifty- 
cent  thief  and  the  one-hundred-dollar  thief  were 
in  the  same  category — thieves.  The  wife  and 
the  ox  were  both  property,  which  was  the  ground 
of  the  objection. 

The  rest  of  his  argument  on  this  point  appears 
to  carry  on  the  idea  that  Ingersoll  does  not  stand 
alone,  for  most  people  would  be  misled  by  his 
arguments,  as  the  average  man  is  "apt  to  place 
too  much  confidence  in  the  ignorant  statements 


52  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

of  that  monumental  bore  of  modern  times,  the 
roving  lecturer — admission  fifty  cents." 

It  is  hoped  that  none  of  these  average  men 
were  so  far  misled  as  to  provide  only  fifty  cents 
to  buy  a  ticket  for  an  Ingersoll  lecture.  Falsely 
fixing  the  price  so  low  does  not  belittle  the  lec- 
turer. 

Ingersoll.  "A  very  curious  thing  about  these 
commandments  is  that  their  supposed  author 
violated  nearly  every  one.  From  Sinai,  accord- 
ing to  the  account,  he  said:  'Thou  shalt  not 
kill,'  and  yet  ordered  the  murder  of  millions; 
'Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery/  and  yet  he  gave 
captive  maidens  to  gratify  the  lust  of  captors; 
'Thou  shalt  not  steal,'  and  yet  he  gave  to  Jew- 
ish marauders  the  flocks  and  herds  of  others; 
'Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  house,  nor 
his  wife,'  and  yet  he  allowed  his  chosen  people 
to  destroy  the  homes  of  neighbors  and  to  steal 
their  wives;  'Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother,' 
and  yet  this  same  God  had  thousands  of  fathers 
butchered,  and  with  the  sword  of  war  killed 
children  yet  unborn;  'Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
witness  against  thy  neighbor,'  and  yet  he  sent 
abroad  'lying  spirits'  to  deceive  his  own  proph- 
ets, and  in  a  hundred  ways  paid  tribute  to  de- 
ceit. So  far  as  we  know,  Jehovah  kept  only  one 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  53 

of  these  commandments — he  worshiped  no  other 
God." 

Lambert  (taking  "He  ordered  the  murder  of 
millions"  for  his  text  takes  nearly  seven  pages 
saying)  :  God  has  a  right  to  remove  at  his  will 
those  he  has  placed  on  the  earth;  death  is  only 
passing  from  one  department  to  another  in  the 
same  universe — therefore  a  trifling  circumstance ; 
that  the  commandment  forbade  unjust  killing 
only;  quotes  from  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  which 
he  says  describes  some  of  the  sins  of  the  people, 
tho  I  do  not  find  anything  of  that  kind  except 
what  he  repeats  in  the  last  paragraph.  He  be- 
gins the  last  paragraph  of  this  part  of  the  criti- 
cism thus:  "Here  we  find  that  these  people, 
whom  you  beslaver  with  your  gushing  sympa- 
thy, were  sorcerers,  murderers  of  their  own  chil- 
dren, offering  them  with  their  own  hands  in  sac- 
rifice to  idols,  and  man-eaters."  He  ends  this 
paragraph  with 

"A  fellow  feeling  makes  us  wondrous  kind." 
About  the  Bible  account  of  God's  disposal  of 
captive  maidens  to  their  captors  the  priest  refers 
to  the  Colonel  as  making  a  "baseless  assertion, 
or  an  appeal  to  ignorance,"  and  asks,  "What  will 
honest  men  of  common  sense  think  of  a  phil- 
osophy that  has  to  be  propped  and  bolstered  by 
such  shameless  misrepresentations  of  history?" 


54  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

The  twenty-first  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  10- 
14,  shows  it  is  exactly  as  Ingersoll  said. 

Lambert  justifies  the  taking  of  flocks  and  herds 
from  their  owners,  and  says,  "Our  government 
confiscated  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  prop- 
erty during  the  late  war,  yet  it  never  occurred 
to  anyone  but  a  simian  philosopher  that  such 
confiscation  was  stealing.  The  cause  that  jus- 
tifies the  war  justifies  the  confiscation." 

Take  particular  notice  of  the  phrase,  "simian 
philosopher."  Also,  notice  that  the  justification 
of  those  wars  is  not  given;  also,  to  Ingersoll's 
assertion  that  the  people  who  took  the  flocks 
and  herds  were  marauders  he  anwers  that  they 
could  not  have  had  a  better  title  because  God 
has  a  right  to  do  as  he  pleases — has  a  right  to 
be  very  bad.  Many  conscientious  people  who 
believe  that  he  could  not  do  wrong  believe  that 
the  Bible  misrepresents  him. 

Mr.  Lambert  denies  that  God  sent  lying  spirits 
to  deceive  his  prophets.  He  admits  there  were 
false  prophets,  but  thinks  God  could  not  make 
them  impossible  without  destroying  free  will  and 
human  liberty.  "They  were  popular  lecturers 
in  their  day,  and  did  not  die  without  issue."  He 
says  there  were  laws  enacted  condemning  them. 
Perhaps  they  were  human  laws.  I  have  not 
found  them.  He  says  he  will  give  $100  to  the 


55 

poor  if  Ingersoll  or  his  disciples  will  make  good 
the  statement;  says  he  is  familiar  with  the  texts 
in  Kings  and  Ezekiel  and  insinuates  that  In- 
gersoll lies. 

Ezekiel  xiv,  9.  "And  if  the  prophet  be  de- 
ceived when  he  hath  spoken  a  thing,  I,  the  Lord, 
have  deceived  that  prophet,  and  I  will  cut  him 
off  from  the  midst  of  my  people  Israel,  and  ye 
shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord."  This  not  only 
shows  Ingersoll's  statement  correct,  but  shows 
the  Bible  charges  God  with  punishing  the  proph- 
et for  being  deceived  by  God — "I  will  cut  him 
off,"  etc. 

Kings  xxii,  20-23.  The  Lord  inquired  who  would 
persuade  Ahab  to  go  to  Ramoth-Gilead,  where  he 
would  be  defeated  and  killed.  A  spirit  answered 
that  he  would.  The  Lord  asked  him  how,  and  he 
said,  "I  will  go  forth,  and  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit 
in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets,  and  he  said,  Thou 
shalt  persuade  him  and  prevail  also ;  go  forth  and 
do  so.  Now,  therefore,  behold  the  Lord  hath  put 
a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  thy  prophets,  and 
the  Lord  hath  spoken  evil  concerning  thee." 

How  can  that  be  explained  to  mean  anything  else 
than  what  it  says?  It  is  plain  that  Ingersoll  was 
right. 

i  Kings  xxi  tells  us  Ahab  wished  to  get,  by  ex- 
change or  purchase,  a  vineyard  near  his  house; 


56  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

but  the  owner  refused  to  part  with  it.  Ahab's  wife 
forged  letters  in  her  husband's  name  to  compass 
the  death  of  the  owner  of  the  vineyard.  When 
Ahab  heard  of  his  death  he  went  down  to  get  the 
vineyard;  but  the  Lord  sent  Elijah  to  see  Ahab 
about  it,  seeming  to  think  that  he,  instead  of  hit 
wife,  was  the  guilty  person,  and  a  charge  of  fol- 
lowing idols  was  brot  against  him.  When  Ahab 
heard  this  "he  rent  his  clothes,  put  sackcloth  upon 
his  flesh,  and  fasted,  and  lay  in  sackcloth,  and 
went  softly";  whereupon  the  Lord  went  to  Eli- 
jah :  "Seest  thou  how  Ahab  humbleth  himself  be- 
fore me?  Because  he  hath  humbled  himself  be- 
fore me  I  will  not  bring  the  evil  in  his  days ;  but 
in  his  son's  days  will  I  bring  the  evil  upon  his 
house."  But,  as  we  have  seen,  he  sent  the  lying 
spirit  to  betray  him. 

Notice  that  according  to  this  account,  God,  be- 
cause of  the  crime  of  Ahab's  wife,  will  visit  evil 
on  his  family  in  his  son's  day.  Many  people,  who 
do  not  think  they  are  re  judging  the  justice  of  God, 
do  not  believe  he  ever  made  any  such  promise. 

Read  2  Thess.  ii,  n,  in  which  we  find  that  "God 
shall  send  them  strong  delusions  that  they  may 
believe  a  lie,  that  they  may  all  be  damned";  in 
Numbers  xiv  the  Lord  spoke  unto  Moses  and 
Aaron  and  warned  them  they  should  know  his 
breach  of  promise.  The  Lord  told  Moses  he 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  57 

would  send  him  to  Pharaoh  to  bring  the  Israel- 
ites out  of  Egypt,  but  that  he  would  harden  Pha- 
raoh's heart,  so  that  he  should  not  let  them  go  till 
he  had  visited  dire  plagues  on  them  to  show  his 
power;  then  when  he,  God,  did  allow  them  to  go 
they  should  spoil  the  Egyptians.  Among  the 
things  God  is  represented  as  doing  to  show  his 
power  is  killing  all  of  the  first  born  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  that  night  in  which  it  is  done  is  hon- 
ored thus:  Ex.  xii,  42.  "It  is  a  night  to  be  much 
observed  unto  the  Lord  for  bringing  them  out 
from  the  land  of  Egypt;  this  is  that  night  of  the 
Lord  to  be  much  observed  of  all  the  children  of 
Israel  in  their  generation." 

Exodus  i  tells  that  God  dealt  well  with  tht 
women  who  lied  to  Pharoah. 

i  Samuel  xvi  says  that  when  God  wanted  Da- 
vid to  supersede  Saul  (i  Sam.  xv,  n,  "he  repented 
that  he  had  made  Saul  king  over  Israel"),  he  sent 
Samuel  to  manage  it,  telling  him  to  deceive  Saul  by 
taking  a  heifer  for  sacrifice  as  a  pretense. 

Genesis  xxvii  gives  an  account  of  an  infamous 
trick  which  God  rewards. 

In  Isaiah  vi,  9-10,  we  find  the  command  to  de- 
ceive the  people,  lest  they  understand  and  convert, 
and  be  healed.  This  is  better  expressed  in  the 
New  Testament  in  the  words  of  Jesus  (Mark  iv, 

12). 


58  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Ingersoll  confined  himself  to  very  few  words; 
but  perhaps  he  considered  cumulative  evidence  un- 
necessary to  disprove  the  inspiration  of  these  pas- 
sages. 

He  quotes  Mr.  Black's  justification  of  the  in- 
tolerance of  the  Old  Testament  on  the  grounds 
that  blasphemy  and  idolatry  were  treason. 

Mr.  Lambert.  "If  these  positions  of  Mr.  Black 
are  well  taken,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  you  can 
escape  their  logical  consequences.  .  .  .  You  became 
a  colonel  to  assist  the  government  to  punish  that 
attack  on  its  supreme  authority,  majesty  and  honor. 
What  new  light  has  penetrated  your  skull  that  you 
now  defend  treason  in  Judea?  Is  it  because  God, 
against  whom  you  seem  to  have  a  personal  grudge, 
was  the  direct  ruler  there?  If  you  should  carry 
out  your  theories  of  toleration  to  their  logical  con- 
clusion and  realize  them  in  overt  acts  in  this  coun- 
try you  would  find  yourself  in  due  time  dangling 
from  a  gibbet.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred 
to  you  that  it  was  necessary  to  disprove  Mr.  Black's 
statement,  that  idolatry  was  treason,  before  you 
could  drive  him  from  his  position.  If  you  grant 
that  idolatry  was  treason  against  the  Jewish  state 
you  give  away  your  case,  and  justify  the  punish- 
ment which  that  state  inflicted  on  the  idolater.  No 
man  with  an  atom  of  sense  will  attempt  to  deny 
this.  To  meet  Mr.  Black  squarely  and  logically 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  59 

you  should  have  proved  that  idolatry  was  not  trea- 
son, and  if  you  could  not  do  this,  as  most  cer- 
tainly you  could  not,  you  should  have  'walked 
up  like  a  man,'  and  admitted  that  the  Jews  were 
right,  and  not  only  right,  but  were  bound  to  pun- 
ish idolatry  and  blasphemy  with  death,  as  treason 
is  punished  in  all  times  and  by  all  nations,  whether 
God  is  the  immediate  head  of  the  government  or 
not." 

Ingersoll  had  said  (in  answer  to  Mr.  Black)  : 
"...  according  to  Mr.  Black,  we  should  all  have 
liberty  of  conscience  except  when  directly  governed 
by  God.  In  that  country  where  God  is  king,  liberty 
cannot  exist.  .  .  .  Think  of  an  infinite  being  who 
is  so  cruel,  so  unjust  that  he  will  not  allow  one 
of  his  own  children  the  liberty  of  thot!  Think 
of  an  infinite  God  acting  as  the  direct  governor  of 
a  people  and  yet  not  able  to  command  their  love! 
Think  of  the  author  of  all  mercy  imbruing  his 
hands  in  the  blood  of  helpless  men,  women  and 
children,  simply  because  he  did  not  give  them  in- 
telligence enough  to  understand  his  laws.  An  earth- 
ly father  who  cannot  govern  by  affection  is  not 
fit  to  be  a  father;  what,  then,  shall  we  say  of  an 
infinite  being  who  resorts  to  violence,  to  pestilence, 
to  disease,  and  famine,  in  the  vain  effort  to  obtain 
even  the  respect  of  a  savage?  Read  this  passage, 
red  from  the  heart  of  cruelty:  'If  thy  brother,  the 


60  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

son  of  thy  mother,  or  thy  son,  or  thy  daughter,  or 
the  wife  of  thy  bosom,  or  thy  friend,  which  is  as 
thine  own  soul,  entice  thee  secretly,  saying,  Let 
us  go  and  serve  other  gods  which  thou  hast  not 
known,  thou  nor  thy  fathers  .  .  .  thou  shalt  not 
consent  unto  him,  nor  hearken  unto  him,  neither 
shalt  thine  eye  pity  him,  neither  shalt  thou  spare, 
neither  shalt  thou  conceal  him,  but  thou  shalt  sure- 
ly kill  him;  thine  hand  shall  be  first  upon  him 
to  put  him  to  death,  and  afterwards  the  hand  of 
all  the  people ;  and  thou  shalt  stone  him  with  stones, 
that  he  die.'  .  .  .  This  is  justified  on  the  ground 
that  'blasphemy  was  a  breach  of  political  allegiance, 
and  idolatry  an  act  of  overt  treason/  We  can  un- 
derstand how  a  human  king  stands  in  need  of  the 
service  of  his  people.  We  can  understand  how 
the  desertion  of  any  of  his  soldiers  weakens  his 
army;  but  were  the  king  infinite  in  power,  his 
strength  would  still  remain  the  same,  and  under 
no  conceivable  circumstances  could  the  enemy  tri- 
umph." 

Mr.  Lambert  (in  justification  of  the  law  for  ston- 
ing a  wife  to  death  if  she  should  say,  Let  us  wor- 
ship the  sun).  "The  traitor  should  be  removed 
from  the  body  politic  as  you  would  remove  a  can- 
cer from  your  jaw,  your  mawkish  sentimentality 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

"Religious  toleration  meant  liberty  of  treason." 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  61 

"There  is  a  huge  fallacy  in  all  this  cant  about 
freedom  of  thot,  thinking  as  we  please,  etc.  The 
intellect — I  mean,  of  course,  the  sane  intellect — 
is  governed  by  motives  and  principles  of  reason, 
not  by  the  whims  of  the  will.  Will  to  think  that 
two  and  two  make  five,  or  that  parallel  lines  will 
meet,  and  see  if  your  reason  will  tolerate  it." 

"The  only  liberty  of  thot  which  he  [God]  does 
not  allow  is  the  liberty  to  think  error,  to  meditate 
evil,  to  plan  crime.  Do  you  insist  on  this  kind  of 
thinking?  If  so,  be  wise  and  keep  it  carefully  with- 
in your  thot,  for  if  you  reduce  this  liberty  to  act 
it  may  lead  to  the  penitentiary,  where  there  are 
many  philosophers  of  liberty  of  thot." 

"By  liberty  I,  of  course,  mean  the  right  to  do 
right.  .  .  .  There  are  individuals,  of  course,  who 
claim  the  liberty  to  do  wrong,  but  they  are  com- 
paratively few.  Some  of  them  have  died  suddenly 
and  prematurely  by  dislocation  of  the  neck,  and 
some  others  are  in  the  penitentiary.  Poor  encour- 
agement for  disciples  of  liberty  and  license  and 
heroes  of  freethot." 

"You  content  yourself  with  giving  a  half  page 
of  the  softest  and  silliest  kind  of  gush  ..." 

Comment.  Anyone  who  is  impolite  enough  might 
retort  that  It  is  a  pity  light  does  not  penetrate  Mr. 
Lambert's  skull  to  show  him  the  difference  between 
stoning  people  to  death  for  religious  opinions  and 


02  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

going  to  war  to  keep  our  states  united;  for  the 
war  of  '61-65  was  not  to  punish  the  slaveholder 
for  putting  in  practice  his  liberty  of  conscience, 
as  he  so  playfully  represents  it. 

Lambert.  "The  slaveholder's  conscience  told  him 
that  secession  was  right.  As  long  as  his  conscience 
was  purely  speculative,  the  government  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  allowed  him  to  amuse  himself  with  it. 
But  when  he  formulated  that  conscience  into  overt 
acts,  such  as  firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  the  govern- 
ment sent  Col.  Ingersoll  and  other  embryo  Caesars 
down  to  interview  him  and  inform  him  that  liberty 
of  conscience  was  a  good  thing  in  its  way — a  some- 
thing to  keep  his  mind  busy — but  if  he  was  such 
a  consummate  ass  as  to  imagine  that  the  United 
States  government  intended  him  to  practice  that 
liberty  publicly  he  would  have  to  readjust  his  ideas 
about  it  on  a  more  solid  basis." 

Comment.  No  Freethinker  could  take  offense 
at  the  joke  about  "disciples  of  liberty  of  license 
and  heroes  of  freethot,"  as  "license"  does  not  apply 
to  them  and  they  are  not  hung  or  put  in  peniten- 
tiaries, but  the  contemptuous  suggestion  will  prob- 
ably serve  its  purpose,  for  people  who  admire  the 
Lambert  kind  are  not  critical  when  their  leaders 
strive  to  please  them. 

Thinking  as  we  please  cannot  describe  freethot 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  their  critics  who  argue  as 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  63 

if  we  could  think  as  we  please,  which  must  be 
what  they  think  it  is  right  to  believe;  this  leaves 
out  all  individual  thot  and  leaves  the  government 
of  belief  to  the  authority  of  others.  Freethot — 
reasoning — is  looked  on  as  criminal  by  those  who 
think  belief  should  be  governed  by  authority.  They 
speak  on  the  supposition  that  people  can  believe 
anything-  they  are  told  to  believe.  Says  Mr.  Lam- 
bert: "The  intellect  ...  is  governed  by  principles 
of  reason,  not  by  the  whims  of  the  will.  Will  that 
two  and  two  make  five,"  etc.  I  do  not  see  what 
"whims  of  the  will"  can  mean  in  the  case  of 
thot.  We  might  will  that  we  might  govern  our 
minds  by  not  allowing  ourselves  to  examine  a  ques- 
tion, and  think  that  by  shutting  out  evidence  we 
might  lead  ourselves  to  believe  as  we  wish;  but 
it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  whatever  we  might  ad- 
vocate under  such  circumstances  could  really  be 
our  belief,  if  we  feared  evidence  would  change  it. 
There  are  those  who  allow  the  expression  of  their 
thot  to  be  governed  by  the  will  of  other  people; 
who  give  up  to  others  the  right  of  investigating 
other  people's  thots  on  certain  subjects.  Sometimes 
they  freely  give  up  their  right  to  think  on  those 
subjects;  sometimes  they  think  they  have  no  right 
to  think,  and  in  such  a  case  they  do  believe,  ac- 
cepting belief  from  the  authority  of  others,  and 
not  allowing  themselves  to  reason.  But  when  we 


64  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

have  the  reasons  for  and  against  beliefs,  we  do 
not  will  what  to  believe,  we  accept  what  seems 
reasonable  to  us.  When  the  advocates  of  any  par- 
ticular beliefs  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  any  pres- 
entation of  an  opposing  belief  it  is  a  confession  of 
the  weakness  of  the  cause  they  advocate.  When 
they  allow  those  under  their  authority  to  see  op- 
posing arguments  only  as  "reviewed"  by  themselves 
we  may  be  sure  they  have  no  adequate  answers 
for  those  arguments,  and  that  they  fear  to  give 
those  under  their  authority  the  opposing  arguments 
as  they  have  really  been  made.  Those  who  give 
up  their  right  to  inform  themselves  of  the  thot  of 
the  world  can  be  kept  in  the  belief  that  two  and 
one  are  one,  if  a  mystery  of  religion  is  concerned, 
and  make  a  merit  of  believing  tho  they  can  not 
understand  it. 

Who  but  Mr.  Lambert  would  speak  of  common 
criminals  as  philosophers  of  freethot,  or  phil- 
osophers of  any  kind,  and  why  does  he  write  such 
a  thing?  Does  he  expect  his  readers  to  believe 
that  Ingersoll,  Darwin,  Spencer,  the  Mills,  Pro- 
fessors Draper  and  Oswald,  A.  D.  White,  and  peo- 
ple of  that  kind  go  to  penitentiaries?  It  seems 
plain  that  this  review  of  Ingersoll  is  written  to 
spread  the  idea  that  the  beautiful,  moral  life  of  his 
subject  was  really  one  of  shame  and  dishonor. 

No;  Ingersoll  does  not  mean  by  religious  liberty 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  65 

the  right  to  commit  treason.  Does  anybody  be- 
lieve that  Mr.  Lambert  thot  he  meant  that?  If 
he  were  writing  for  those  who  are  expected  to  get 
anything  like  a  correct  idea  of  Ingersoll  he  would 
probably  base  his  criticisms  on  inferences  drawn 
naturally  from  the  author's  simple,  plain  and  clear 
language,  if  he  criticized  him  at  all.  If  he  favored 
the  reading  by  religious  people  of  the  debate  be- 
tween Ingersoll  and  Black  it  would  show  that  there 
was  a  probability  of  his  wanting  to  be  fair.  When 
will  a  religious  representative  in  a  debate  publish 
his  own  arguments  and  those  of  his  opponents  at 
his  own  expense,  and  in  the  same  book?  That  is 
what  Ingersoll  did.  What  shall  we  say  of  the  man 
who  tries  to  keep  people  from  reading  the  argu- 
ment of  his  adversary? 

What  should  be  said  of  the  man,  even  if  he  were 
fair  enough  to  not  misrepresent  his  opponent's 
position,  who  continually  applied  to  him  opprobrious 
epithets  without  any  reason?  This  man,  who  is 
described  by  his  biographer  in  the  preface  of  the 
volume  now  under  consideration  as  of  "quiet, 
gentlemanly  and  courteous  ways,  while  his  scholar- 
ly attainments,  good  judgment  in  matters,  both 
public  and  private,  and  his  genuine  Christian  char- 
acter command  the  respect  of  all,"  characterizes 
Mr.  Ingersoll's  protests  against  intolerance  as 


66  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

"your  mawkish  sentimentalism,"  and  "softest  and 
silliest  kind  of  gush." 

He  quotes  "such  a  God  would  know  the  mists 
and  clouds,  the  darkness  enveloping  the  human 
mind";  and  remarks:  "Some  pages  back  you  ex- 
alt the  human  mind,  and  claim  for  it  the  right  to 
rejudge  the  justice  of  God,  and  now  you  deplore 
the  clouds  and  mists  and  darkness  which  enshroud 
it." 

Exercising  the  mind  drives  away  clouds,  mists 
and  darkness.  Accepting  everything,  no  matter 
how  unreasonable,  without  thot  dulls  the  intellect, 
and  allows  the  clouds  to  thicken  around  us. 

He  recommends  Ingersoll  to  "hear  the  words  of 
God  and  obey  them,  and  not  misuse  the  little  light 
it  [the  mind]  has  left  in  denying  his  existence, 
or  making  him  the  subject  of  his  blasphemous 
jests." 

This  is  misleading.  In  all  of  Ingersoll's  earnest 
and  dignified  argument  there  is  no  jest,  blasphe- 
mous or  any  other  kind.  His  accuser  makes  some 
efforts  which  could  hardly  be  called  jests,  because 
of  their  malice.  It  seems  to  me  malapert  sayings 
would  be  the  most  appropriate  phrase  by  which 
to  designate  them. 

He  repeats  in  substance  what  Mr.  Black  said 
about  the  manner  of  carrying  on  war  with  an  op- 
posing force;  that  they  were  justified  in  doing  "as 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  67 

their  enemies  did.  In  your  treatment  of  hostile 
barbarians,  you  not  only  may  lawfully,  but  must 
necessarily,  adopt  their  mode  of  warfare.  If  they 
come  to  conquer  you  they  may  be  conquered  by 
you;  if  they  give  no  quarter  they  are  entitled  to 
none ;  if  the  death  of  the  whole  population  be  their 
purpose,  you  may  defeat  it  by  exterminating  theirs." 
(By  the  way,  all  this  is  quite  irrelevant,  for  the  wars 
instanced  by  Ingersoll  were  aggressive,  for  the  ex- 
termination of  the  people,  and  the  conquest  of  their 
country.)  He  says  Ingersoll  affects  to  believe  that 
Black  means  certain  atrocities,  which  he  mentions. 
Why  should  he  say  affects,  when  those  atrocities 
were  the  subject  of  the  article  which  Mr.  Black 
is  supposed  to  be  answering?  It  would  be  nat- 
urally supposed  Mr.  Black  meant  the  same  thing 
unless  he  announces  the  introduction  of  something 
else. 

Mr.  Lambert  criticizes  Ingersoll  for  trotting  out 
infants  in  his  writings  and  lectures. 

Lambert.  "You  trot  them  out  on  all  occasions, 
and  in  all  conditions  of  deshabille.  Those  infants 
waddle  and  crawl — and  so  forth,  thru  your  articles 
so  promiscuously  as  to  remind  one  of  a  foundling 
asylum,  with  yourself  as  peripatetic  dry  nurse  in 
ordinary.  By  the  way,  were  you  not  once  a 
colonel  of  infantry?  An  old  soldier  loves  to  dwell 
on  the  reminiscences  of  the  past.  But  heaven  help 


68  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

you  if  those  infants  ever  live  to  take  revenge  for 
your  worse  than  Herodian  cruelty.  When  you 
want  to  reason  with  men  on  great  questions,  you 
should  send  the  children  to  the  nursery  with  or- 
ders to  have  them  well  supplied  with  what  the  old 
Dutch  women  used  to  call  bread  and  milk  'poul- 
tice.' This  will  keep  them  in  good  condition  until 
you  want  to  trot  them  out  again  in  your  next  lec- 
ture on  Christianity." 

Comment.  His  humor  has  an  elephantine  grace, 
and  his  puns  the  mellowness  of  a  ripe  old  age.  He 
repeats  the  quotation,  "If  they  kill  the  infants  in 
our  cradles,  must  we  brain  theirs?"  and  goes  on, 
"Here  they  are  again — yes,  by  all  means,  brain 
them,  tear  them  limb  from  limb,  salt  them,  ship 
them  to  the  Cannibal  Islands,  make  them  read  your 
article  on  the  Christian  religion,  or  your  lecture 
on  'Skulls' — do  anything  with  them  to  keep  them 
from  muddling  your  brains  when  you  are  reason- 
ing with  men  on  subjects  that  require  all  your  at- 
tention." 

After  this  unmeaning  entr'acte  look  back  at  the 
sane  and  touching  protest  against  barbarity  in  war- 
fare. 

Ingersoll.  "If  they  [the  American  Indians]  take 
our  captives,  bind  them  to  trees,  and  if  their  squaws 
fill  their  quivering  flesh  with  sharpened  faggots 
and  set  them  on  fire,  that  they  may  die  clothed 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  69 

with  flame,  must  our  wives,  our  mothers,  and  our 
daughters  follow  the  fiendish  example?" 

Lambert.  No,  we  must  use  quicker  and  cheaper 
methods,  that  the  burden  of  the  taxpayer  may  not 
be  increased;  if,  we  suppose,  a  hundred  of  our 
captives  are  to  be  bound  to  undergo  the  death  tor- 
ture, and  by  braining  one  of  their  infants  we  could 
cause  them  to  desist,  then  we  see  what  Mr.  Black 
meant  by  adopting  their  mode  of  warfare. 

Comment.  Not  at  all;  there  was  no  question 
of  preventing  further  cruelty.  Ingersoll  pointed 
out  the  atrocious  inhumanity  of  the  wars  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Black  tried  to  justify  them  by 
saying  we  must  adopt  the  mode  of  warfare  of  our 
enemies,  apparently  losing  sight  of  the  moral  view 
presented  by  Ingersoll  and  not  noticing  they  were 
purely  aggressive  and  by  command  of  Jehovah. 
Lambert  holds  up  the  hands  of  Mr.  Black  with  the 
cool  hardihood  of  a  brutal  murderer,  ignoring  all 
humane  considerations.  His  supposed  reason  for 
braining  the  babe  is  impossible,  for  the  torturing 
could  not  take  place  unless  the  captives  were  com- 
pletely in  the  power  of  their  enemies,  and  the 
friends  of  the  captives  would  not  be  where  they 
could  brain  Indian  babes  any  more  than  they  could 
free  the  victims. 

Ingersoll.  "Is  this  the  conclusion  of  the  most 
enlightened  Christianity?" 


7O  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

Lambert.  "Yes,  sir,  and  the  conclusion  of 
the  most  enlightened  common  sense,  too.  Life 
is  practical,  it  is  neither  poetry  nor  effeminate 
philosophy.  The  passions  of  human  nature, 
civilized  or  barbarous,  make  stern  alternatives 
necessary,  and  lugubrious  cant  will  not  change 
man's  nature  or  the  necessities  that  arise 
from  it.  If  those  fiendish  squaws  had  lived  in 
Palestine  in  the  days  of  Jesus  and  had  been  put 
to  the  sword  by  the  Jews,  you  would  have  accused 
the  latter  of  murder  and  made  God  the  abettor 
of  the  crime.  Much  depends  on  the  point  of  view 
from  which  we  look  at  a  thing." 

Comment.  Mr.  Lambert  seems  to  understand 
that  much  depends  on  whether  we  look  at  a  thing 
at  all  or  allow  our  attention  to  be  diverted  to 
something  else  which  has  been  substituted  for  the 
question  in  debate. 

At  any  time  when  there  were  not  supposed  to 
be  any  exigencies  for  giving  an  incorrect  represent- 
ation of  an  Agnostic  author  to  those  who  are  not 
intelligent  enough  or  fair  enough  to  read  the  work 
for  themselves,  no  one  would  think  of  such  a  thing 
as  writing  as  tf  civilized  people  should  become 
savages  to  force  their  enemies  to  civilized  war- 
fare; no  one  would  think  of  justifying  savagery 
even,  much  less  holding  it  up  as  an  example  of 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  71 

moral  teaching.  They  know  that  barbarity  cannot 
under  any  circumstances  be  a  civilizing  force. 

Can  anyone  who  believes  in  a  just  God  who  is  a 
loving  father  to  all  his  creatures  read  Deuteronomy 
xx,  10-17,  and  still  believe  he  is  truly  represented 
there? 

"When  thou  comest  nigh  unto  a  city  to  fight 
against  it,  then  proclaim  peace  unto  it. 

"And  it  shall  be  if  it  make  thee  answer  of  peace 
and  open  unto  thee,  then  it  shall  be,  that  all  the 
people  that  is  found  therein  shall  be  tributaries  unto 
thee  and  they  shall  serve  thee. 

"And  if  it  will  make  no  peace  with  thee,  but 
will  make  war  against  thee,  then  shalt  thou  be- 
siege it. 

"And  when  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  delivered  it 
into  thine  hands  thou  shalt  smite  every  male  thereof 
.with  the  edge  of  the  sword;  and  the  women,  and 
the  little  ones,  and  the  cattle,  and  all  that  is  in 
the  city,  even  all  the  spoil  thereof,  thou  shalt 
take  unto  thyself;  and  thou  shalt  eat  the  spoil  of 
thine  enemies,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  given 
thee. 

"Thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  all  the  cities  which 
are  very  far  off  from  thee,  which  are  not  of  the 
cities  of  these  nations. 

"But  Of  the  cities  of  these  people,  which  the  Lord 


72  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

thy  God  doth  give  thee  for  an  inheritance,  thou 
shalt  save  alive  nothing  that  breatheth: 
"But  thou  shalt  utterly  destroy  them." 
The  author  of  the  "Notes"  accuses  Mr.  Ingersoll 
of  misrepresentation  of  Mr.  Black,  "which,"  he 
says,  "it  is  hard  to  imagine  to  have  been  accidental 
or  unintentional,"  and  gives  examples  of  some 
things  Mr.  Black  said  in  other  places  to  prove  his 
accusation.  "It  is  not  true  that  Mr.  Black  justifies 
wars  of  extermination  because  the  American  peo- 
ple fought  for  the  integrity  of  their  government." 
Then  why  did  he  mention  the  last  in  connection 
with  the  first?  He  couldn't  consistently  do  it,  any- 
how, for  he  does  not  justify  the  federal  union, 
at  least  without  slavery — the  abolitionists,  who 
were  "not  a  very  respectable  portion  of  the  civil- 
ized world"  succeeded,  "I  need  not  say  by  what 
means,  or  with  what  effect  upon  the  country."  If 
that  does  not  mean  that  the  war  was  wrong  and 
one  of  the  outcomes  (the  end  of  slavery)  bad  in 
moral  effect,  what  does  it  mean?  "Subordination 
of  inferiors  to  superiors  is  the  groundwork  of  hu- 
man society."  "The  improvement  of  our  race 
.  .  .  must  come  from  obedience  to  some  master, 
better  and  wiser  than  ourselves."  Mr.  Black  would 
probably  like  to  choose  his  master,  and  that  was 
not  possible  under  slavery.  I  never  knew  who  was 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  73 

his  master,  whether  he  had  his  choice  of  masters, 
or  whether  his  subjection  was  willing. 

Mr.  Black  wrote,  "I  do  not  say  the  war  was  either 
better  or  worse  for  his  [Ingersoll's]  participation 
and  approval.  But  if  his  own  conduct  (in  going 
out  'a-coloneling'),  for  which  he  expresses  neither 
penitence  or  shame,  was  right,  it  was  right  on 
grounds  which  make  it  an  inexcusable  outrage  to 
call  the  children  of  Israel  savage  criminals  for 
carrying  on  wars  of  aggression  to  save  the  life  of 
their  government."  Does  not  this  make  it  plain 
that  Ingersoll  did  not  misrepresent  Mr.  Black  ?  Mr. 
Black  continues:  "These  inconsistencies  are  the 
necessary  consequences  of  having  no  rule  of 
action,  and  no  guide  for  the  conscience.  When  a 
man  throws  away  the  golden  metewand  which  God 
has  provided,  and  takes  the  elastic  cord  of  feeling 
for  his  measure  of  righteousness,  you  cannot  tell 
from  day  to  day  what  he  will  think  or  do." 

We  have  just  seen,  in  the  extracts  from  the  Bible, 
the  golden  metewand  which  Mr.  Black  declares  to 
be  God's ;  now  let  us  consider  the  conscience,  which 
Mr.  Black  pronounces  an  elastic  cord  of  feeling, 
as  shown  in  Mr.  Ingersoll's  defense  of  the  war  in 
which  he  had  a  part. 

Ingersoll.  "Mr.  Black  justifies  the  wars  of  ex- 
termination and  conquest  because  the  American 
people  fought  for  the  integrity  of  their  own  coun- 


74  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

try ;  fought  to  do  away  with  the  infamous  institu- 
tion of  slavery;  fought  to  preserve  the  jewels  of 
liberty  for  themselves  and  their  children.  Is  it 
possible  that  his  mind  is  so  clouded  by  political 
and  religious  prejudice,  by  the  recollections  of  an 
unfortunate  administration,  that  he  sees  no  differ- 
ence between  a  war  of  extermination  and  one  of 
self-preservation?  that  he  sees  no  choice  between 
the  murder  of  helpless  age,  of  weeping  women,  and 
sleeping  babes,  and  the  defense  of  liberty  and  na- 
tionality ? 

"The  soldiers  of  the  Republic  did  not  wage  a  war 
of  extermination.  They  did  not  seek  to  enslave 
their  fellow  men.  They  did  not  murder  trembling 
age.  They  did  not  sheathe  their  swords  in  wom- 
en's breasts.  They  gave  the  old  men  bread,  and 
let  the  mothers  rock  their  babes  in  peace.  They 
fought  to  save  the  world's  great  hope — to  free  a 
race  and  put  the  humblest  hut  beneath  the  canopy 
of  liberty  and  law. 

"Claiming  neither  praise  nor  dispraise  for  the 
part  taken  by  me  in  the  civil  war,  for  the  purposes 
of  this  argument,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  my 
record,  poor  and  barren  as  it  is,  should  be  com- 
pared with  his. 

"Never  for  an  instant  did  I  suppose  that  any  re- 
spectable American  citizen  could  be  found  willing 
at  this  day  to  defend  the  institution  of  slavery ;  and 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  75 

never  was  I  more  astonished  than  when  I  found 
Mr.  Black  denying  that  civilized  countries  passion- 
ately assert  that  slavery  is  and  always  was  a  hideous 
crime.  I  was  amazed  when  he  declared  that  'the 
doctrine  that  slavery  is  a  crime  under  all  circum- 
stances and  at  all  times  was  first  started  by  the 
adherents  of  a  political  faction  in  this  country  less 
than  forty  years  ago.'  He  tells  us  that  'they 
denounced  God  and  Christ  for  not  agreeing  with 
them'  but  that  'they  did  not  constitute  the  civil- 
ized world;  nor  were  they,  if  the  truth  must  be 
told,  a  very  respectable  portion  of  it.  Politically 
they  were  successful ;  I  need  not  say  by  what  means, 
or  with  what  effect  upon  the  morals  of  the  coun- 
try.' 

"Slavery  held  both  branches  of  Congress,  filled 
the  chair  of  the  Executive,  sat  upon  the  supreme 
bench,  had  in  its  hands  all  rewards,  all  offices ;  knelt 
in  the  pew,  occupied  the  pulpit,  stole  human  beings 
in  the  name  of  God,  robbed  the  trundle-bed  for 
love  of  Christ;  incited  mobs,  led  ignorance,  ruled 
colleges,  sat  in  the  chairs  of  professors,  dominated 
the  public  press,  closed  the  lips  of  free  speech,  and 
polluted  with  its  leprous  hand  every  source  and 
spring  of  power.  The  abolitionists  attacked  this 
monster.  They  were  the  bravest,  grandest  men  of 
their  country  and  their  century.  Denounced  by 
thieves,  hated  by  hypocrites,  mobbed  by  cowards, 


76  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

slandered  by  priests,  shunned  by  politicians,  ab- 
horred by  the  seekers  of  office — these  men  of  whom 
the  world  was  not  worthy,  in  spite  of  all  opposi- 
tion, in  spite  of  poverty  and  want,  conquered  in- 
numerable obstacles,  never  faltering  for  one  mo- 
ment, never  dismayed — accepting  defeat  with  a 
smile  of  infinite  hope — knowing  they  were  right 
— insisted  and  persisted  until  every  chain  was 
broken,  until  slave-pens  became  schoolhouses,  and 
three  millions  of  slaves  became  free  men,  women 
and  children.  They  did  not  measure  with  'the  gold- 
en metewand  of  God,'  but  with  'the  elastic  cord 
of  human  feeling.'  They  were  men  the  latchets 
of  whose  shoes  no  believer  in  human  slavery  was 
ever  worthy  to  unloose,  and  yet  we  are  told  by 
this  modern  defender  of  the  slavery  of  Jehovah 
that  they  were  not  even  respectable;  and  this 
slander  is  justified,  because  the  writer  is  assured 
'that  the  infallible  God  proceeded  upon  good 
grounds  when  he  authorized  slavery  in  Judea." 

"Not  satisfied  with  having  slavery  in  this  world, 
Mr.  Black  assures  us  that  it  will  last  thru  all  eter- 
nity, and  that  forever  and  forever  inferiors  must 
be  subordinated  to  superiors.  Who  is  the  superior 
man?  According  to  Mr.  Black  he  is  superior  who 
lives  upon  the  unpaid  labor  of  the  inferior.  With 
me,  the  superior  man  is  the  one  who  uses  his 
superiority  in  bettering  the  condition  of  the  inferi- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  77 

or.  The  superior  man  is  strength  for  the  weak, 
eyes  for  the  blind,  brains  for  the  simple;  he  is  the 
one  who  helps  carry  the  burden  that  nature  has 
put  upon  the  inferior.  Any  man  who  helps  an- 
other to  gain  and  retain  his  liberty  is  superior  to 
any  infallible  God  who  authorized  slavery  in  Judea. 
For  my  part  I  would  rather  be  a  slave  than  a  mas- 
ter. It  is  better  to  be  robbed  than  a  robber.  I 
would  rather  be  stolen  from  than  be  a  thief. 

"According  to  Mr.  Black,  there  will  be  slavery 
in  heaven,  and  fast  by  the  throne  of  God  will  be 
the  auction-block,  and  the  streets  of  the  new  Jerusa- 
lem will  be  adorned  with  the  whipping-post,  while 
the  music  of  the  harp  will  be  supplemented  by 
the  crack  of  the  driver's  whip.  If  some  good  Re- 
publican would  catch  Mr.  Black,  'incorporate  him 
into  his  family,  tame  him,  teach  him  to  think,  and 
give  him  a  knowledge  of  the  true  principles  of 
human  liberty  and  government,  he  would  confer 
upon  him  a  most  beneficent  boon.'  [This  last  sen- 
tence quoted  from  Black's  excuse  for  slavery,  page 
43  of  the  discussion.] 

"Slavery  includes  all  other  crimes.  It  is  the  joint 
product  of  the  kidnapper,  pirate,  thief,  murderer, 
and  hypocrite.  It  degrades  labor  and  corrupts  lei- 
sure. To  lacerate  the  naked  back,  to  sell  wives, 
to  steal  babes,  to  breed  blood-hounds,  to  debauch 
your  own  soul — this  is  slavery.  This  is  what  Je- 


78  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

hovah  authorized  in  Judea.  This  is  what  Mr.  Black 
believes  in  still.  He  'measures  with  the  golden 
metewand  of  God.'  I  abhor  slavery.  With  me 
liberty  is  not  merely  a  means — it  is  an  end.  With- 
out that  word  all  other  words  are  empty  sounds. 

"Mr.  Black  is  too  late  with  his  protest  against 
the  freedom  of  his  fellowman.  Liberty  is  making 
the  tour  of  the  world.  Russia  has  emancipated 
her  serfs;  the  slave  trade  is  prosecuted  only  by 
thieves  and  pirates;  Spain  feels  upon  her  cheek 
the  burning  blush  of  shame;  Brazil  with  proud 
and  happy  eyes  is  looking  for  the  dawn  of  free- 
dom's day;  the  people  of  the  South  rejoice  that 
slavery  is  no  more,  and  every  good  and  honest  man 
(excepting  Mr.  Black),  of  every  land  and  clime, 
hopes  that  the  limbs  of  men  will  never  feel  again 
the  weary  weight  of  chains." 

Ingersoll  had  said  a  war  of  conquest  was  simply 
murder.  Mr.  Black  answers  that  Ingersoll  him- 
self went  a-coloneling  in  a  war  of  conquest.  To 
this  Ingersoll  responds  that  the  war  for  the  Union 
was  one  in  defense  of  liberty  and  nationality;  that 
the  soldiers  of  the  Republic  did  not  wage  a  war 
of  extermination,  and  more  to  the  effect  that  it 
was  not  carried  on  in  a  barbarous  manner;  where- 
upon Mr.  Lambert  declares  that  Ingersoll  misrep- 
resented Mr.  Black,  and  that  it  is  hard  to  think 
he  did  not  do  it  on  purpose;  that  as  he  does  not 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  79 

seem  to  understand  Mr.  Black's  argument  he,  Mr. 
Lambert,  will  put  it  in  more  simple  form! 

Lambert.  "  'A  war  of  conquest  is  simply  mur- 
der.' But  the  war  with  the  South  was  a  war  of 
conquest.  Therefore,  the  war  against  the  South 
was  simply  murder.  Now  Mr.  Ingersoll  partici- 
pated in  that  war,  therefore  Mr.  Ingersoll  was  a 
party  to  the  crime  of  murder.  This  was  your  op- 
ponent's argument  in  logical  form.  You  evidently 
saw  its  force.  You  could  not  extricate  yourself 
except  by  misrepresentation,  and  you  did  not  hesi- 
tate a  moment.  Therefore  you  said:  'Mr.  Black 
justifies  wars  of  extermination  and  conquest,  be- 
cause the  American  people  fought  for  the  integrity 
of  their  own  country.'  " 

Comment.  Observe,  Ingersoll  did  not  under- 
stand, so  he  would  state  it  simply.  Ingersoll  did 
understand,  and  therefore  misrepresented  to  get 
out  of  the  trap,  etc. 

Of  course,  Mr.  Black's  statement  was  perfectly 
plain  and  easy  for  anyone  to  understand,  but  Mr. 
Lambert  wished  to  befuddle  his  readers  with  many 
words,  altho  they  did  not  make  any  change  in  the 
appearance  of  the  first  statement;  and  to  further 
confuse  the  ideas  of  adherents  by  many  more  words 
to  the  effect  that  Ingersoll  tried  to  escape  from 
Black's  conclusion,  when  he  really  answered  by 
his  contention  that  the  war  in  which  he  engaged 


8o  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

was  not  a  war  of  conquest,  but  one  for  liberty  and 
union. 

But  hear  Mr.  Lambert  to  the  end  of  his  rig- 
marole. 

Lambert.  "You  perpetrated  this  misrepresenta- 
tion to  make  a  way  to  escape  from  the  trap  in 
which  you  were  caught  and  to  afford  you  a  field 
for  a  little  sentimental  gush  about  'slavery'  and 
the  'jewels  of  liberty,'  hoping,  with  the  instinct 
of  the  cuttle-fish,  you  might  get  away  in  the  mud- 
diness  you  had  created.  But,  my  dear  sir,  it  will 
not  do,  for  society  is  not  entirely  made  up  of  fools. 
Our  war  with  the  South  was  a  war  of  conquest,  for 
a  war  of  conquest  is  a  war  to  conquer"  [Hear  ye!] 
"and  that  is  what  we  meant  when  we  sent  armies 
to  the  South.  If  conquest  is  murder  then  you  are 
guilty  of  murder  in  proportion  to  your  importance 
in  that  war.  But  you  have  said  a  war  of  conquest 
is  simply  murder.  Then,  according  to  the  adaman- 
tine rules  of  logic,  you  are  simply  a  murderer. 
That  is  where  your  opponent  landed  you. 

"You  justify  the  war  with  the  South  by  saying 
it  was  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  country. 
The  justification  is  complete ;  but  what  follows  from 
it?  Why,  it  follows  that  wars  of  conquest  are 
sometimes  justifiable,  which  is  the  very  thing  you 
denied  when  you  said  that  'a  war  of  conquest  is 
simply  murder.'  When  you  said  that  your  mind 


-  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  81 

was  on  the  Jew,  you  wanted  to  lay  down  a  prin- 
ciple that  would  surely  condemn  him  and  his  God, 
and  you  did  not  see  that  you  were  making  a  mur- 
derer of  yourself.  Ex  parte  philosophy  is  a  poor 
philosophy.  You  are  a  student  of  the  infidel 
philosophers  of  the  last  and  present  centuries,  but 
you  have  not  caught  their  genius  nor  comprehended 
their  bulk.  You  take  their  points  here  and  there 
and  depend  for  the  rest  on  your  wit  and  faculty 
of  drollery.  Men  laugh  with  you  or  at  you,  but, 
after  all,  life  is  a  serious  affair,  and  when  the  play 
is  over  the  clown  is  the  first  to  be  forgotten." 

Comment.  The  first  part  of  this  is  based  on  the 
assumption  that  it  was  admitted  that  the  Civil  War 
was  one  of  conquest;  but  Ingersoll  did  not  admit 
it.  Who  does?  Certainly  no  one,  unless  he  is  de- 
termined to  agree  with  the  priest  in  everything,  no 
matter  how  absurd,  that  he  might  say  in  his  efforts 
to  make  an  appearance  of  discrediting  an  Agnos- 
tic. 

What  is  meant  by  not  comprehending  the  bulk 
of  the  philosophers? 

Those  who  read  Mr.  Ingersoll's  argument  know 
that  he  made  no  reference,  even  indirectly,  to  the 
Jews.  He  kept  strictly  to  his  subject. 

Ex  parte  philosophy  is  not  Ingersoll's.  He 
wished  every  one  to  read  all  the  arguments  of  his 
adversaries  as  well  as  his  own.  Liberals  have  no 


82  VIEW-  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Index  Expurgatorius,  nor  have  they  any  priests  to 
present  erroneously  whatever  they  fear  to  have  the 
people  see  as  it  is. 

Again  he  represents  Ingersoll  as  a  clown.  Judge 
for  yourself  of  the  language  and  ideas  to  which 
he  refers  as  given  by  their  author.  It  is  plain  that 
the  being  calling  him  a  clown  was  pretty  sure  that 
his  readers  never  read  Ingersoll's  fervent  and 
solemn  protest  against  inhumanity.  The  tender- 
ness of  Ingersoll's  nature  which  glows  thru  his 
writings  would  be  a  revelation  to  readers  of  Lam- 
bert who  have  depended  on  his  exposition  of  the 
great  Agnostic,  who  is  great  because  of  his  sym- 
pathetic, benevolent  heart.  Yet  on  the  very  next 
page,  in  comments  following  the  ones  last  quoted, 
Mr.  Lambert  quotes  Ingersoll,  "Not  satisfied  with 
having  slavery  in  this  world,  Mr.  Black  assures 
us  that  it  will  last  thru  eternity,"  and  says: 

Lambert.  "There  is  but  one  reply  to  this.  It 
consists  of  a  vigorous  English  word  of  three  let- 
ters. It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  Mr.  Black  never 
assured  us  of  anything  from  which  such  an  in- 
ference could  be  drawn.  On  what  principle  do 
you  justify  this  gross  misrepresentation?  Certain- 
ly not  that  divine  law  which  forbids  you  to  bear 
false  witness  against  your  neighbor.  If  you  had 
said  the  above  under  oath  would  it  not  have  been 
perjury?  Did  you  say  it  in  view  of  the  fact  that 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  83 

you  had  made  arrangements  to  prevent  your  op- 
ponent from  replying  to  you?" 

Comment.  The  assertion  which  led  to  the  use 
of  rough  epithets  is  justified  by  Mr.  Black's  words, 
which  Lambert  does  not  give.  In  speaking  of 
slavery  he  said:  "All  improvement  of  our  race, 
in  this  world  and  the  next,  must  come  from  obedi- 
ence to  some  master  better  and  wiser  than  our- 
selves." 

The  false  accusation  that  Ingersoll  prevented  Mr. 
Black  from  replying  has  been  exposed. 

Quoting,  "Who  is  the  superior  man?"  he  says: 
"He  who  does  not  lie,  or  misrepresent,  or  blas- 
pheme his  Maker,  is  morally  superior  to  him  who 
does." 

Besides  this  vile  insinuation,  which  is  without 
excuse,  Lambert  accuses  Ingersoll  three  times  on 
one  page  of  lying,  when  anyone  can  see  by  read- 
ing what  Mr.  Black  did  say  that  Ingersoll  was 
correct. 

He  quotes  some  of  what  Ingersoll  szfys  about 
the  superior  man  and  goes  on  with  some  of  his 
"analyzing,"  which  appears  very  learned  to  those 
who  look  up  to  him  as  the  infallible  representa- 
tive of  Almighty  God.  He  would  teach  us  that 
doing  good  to  others  is  a  sign  of  superiority,  but 
not  the  reason  of  it. 

Is  not  the  one  who  does  good  superior  because 


84  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

he  does  good,  just  as  we  would  naturally  under- 
stand Ingersoll  to  mean? 

He  says,  when  Ingersoll  says  "the  superior  man 
is  one  who  uses  his  superiority  in  bettering  the 
condition  of  the  inferior,"  he  admits  "the  fact  of 
inferiority  and  superiority,  and  therefore  subordina- 
tion." Not  so;  Col.  Ingersoll  and  many  others  do 
better  the  condition  of  those  who  may  be  inferior 
in  the  way  of  talents  or  opportunities,  but  that  does 
not  prove  there  is  subordination  about  it,  in  any 
sense.  In  some  cases  there  is  subordination  in 
one  sense,  as  when  a  farmer  hires  a  man  to  help 
him  he  gives  directions  as  to  what  he  wants  done, 
but  that  is  different  from  the  subordination  of  the 
man  who  is  owned  by  another.  The  teacher  is 
superior  to  his  pupils  in  the  way  of  education,  and 
they  work  under  his  direction,  but  we  do  not  draw 
the  inference  from  this  that  slavery  is  right. 

Mr.  Lambert.  The  superiority  comes  before  the 
good  act;  if  superiority  were  the  act  of  the  will 
all  men  could  be  superior  by  willing  it.  "Your  defi- 
nition, then,  like  most  of  your  definitions,  means 
nothing  when  analyzed." 

Comment.  If  a  man  does  not  make  good  use 
of  his  superior  talents  or  advantages  he  is  not  a 
superior  man.  Actions  go  with  the  character  and 
advantages  making  him  superior.  Mr.  Lambert  is 
great  on  definitions  and  analyzing.  I  look  on  what 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  85 

Mr.  Ingersoll  said  as  giving  his  idea  of  the  quali- 
ties constituting  a  superior  man,  and  don't  believe 
anyone  but  Lambert  would  think  of  analyzing  them 
as  definitions. 

He  goes  on  in  the  same  style  of  criticism  about 
eyes  to  the  blind,  etc.,  and  ends  paragraphs  in  simi- 
lar style,  like  this:  "I  note  these  small  points  to 
show  that  you  are  not  an  adept  in  the  proper  use 
of  words  and  that  your  definitions  are  untrust- 
worthy." 

Has  the  reader  forgotten  what  the  argument  is 
about  after  going  over  all  this  multiplication  of 
words  about  words?  We  must  remember  that  In- 
gersoll's  argument  about  the  superior  man  was  in 
answer  to  that  of  Mr.  Black  in  favor  of  slavery, 
while  these  pages  of  Mr.  Lambert's  about  words 
do  not  touch  the  question  of  the  debate. 

He  quotes,  "I  would  rather  be  a  slave  than  the 
master,"  which  means,  of  course,  as  the  sentence 
itself  and  the  rest  of  the  paragraph  show,  that  he 
would  rather  be  wronged  than  to  wrong  another. 
But  Mr.  Lambert  makes  it  the  occasion  of  a  ser- 
mon in  which  he  works  in  the  implication  that  such 
a  preference  shows  "an  intellectual  imbecile  or  a 
consummate  hypocrite,"  and  preaches  manliness 
as  opposed  to  "the  instincts  of  a  slave."  He  says 
he  would  rather  be  the  master,  for  he  could  free 
the  slave.  "Perhaps,  in  view  of  the  proneness 


86  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

of  man  to  domineer  and  play  the  tyrant  it  were 
better  to  be  neither  the  slave  nor  the  master." 

Most  good  people  would  say  that  without  any 
perhaps.  If  the  master  frees  the  slave,  then,  of 
course,  there  is  no  master  nor  slave.  The  valuable 
part  of  that  sermon  is  that  it  is  short ;  but  it  should 
be  preserved  to  show  the  temper  of  the  preacher. 

Lambert.  (In  answer  to  Ingersoll's  mention  of 
those  who  help  others  to  gain  or  retain  liberty.) 
"Then  why  do  you  not  advocate  the  throwing  open 
of  our  prison  doors  that  the  murderers  and  thieves 
cruelly  shut  up  there  may  gain  and  retain  the  liberty 
they  sigh  for  ?  Ah !  that  would  be  dangerous.  Well 
then,  it  is  not  always  right  to  help  others  gain  and 
retain  their  liberty.  It  is  hard  for  you  to  say  any- 
thing without  saying  too  much  or  too  little.  You 
are  fond  of  making  general  propositions,  but  they 
are  dangerous  tools  and  should  be  handled  with 
care." 

Comment.  Who  would  tell  the  marines  or  any 
other  people  that  any  writer  could  find  a  publisher 
for  any  book  in  which  a  thing  like  that  last  para- 
graph could  appear,  without  the  appearance  first 
of  the  fact  that  it  is  by  a  Christian  who  professes 
to  answer  an  Agnostic?  Would  any  person  in  any 
other  kind  of  work  intimate  that  it  is  dangerous 
and  foolish  to  advocate  liberty  as  opposed  to  slavery 
because  murderers  and  thieves  are  confined  in  pris- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  87 

on  ?  Would  this  writer  say  in  so  many  plain  words 
that  slavery  is  right  and  profess  in  so  many  plain 
words  to  believe  that  our  confining  thieves  and 
murderers  in  penitentiaries  proves  that  slavery  is 
necessary  to  good  government  ? 

If  art  is  praised  this  writer's  thots  turn  to  in- 
decent pictures;  if  liberty  is  mentioned  he  imme- 
diately remembers  criminals  and  will  have  nothing 
of  liberty.  The  subject  was  slavery  and  not  mur- 
der. 

Ingersoll  goes  on,  "Slavery  includes  all  other 
crimes,"  and  Lambert  answers  with  more  of  his 
contemptuous  criticisms  on  language.  He  reminds 
me  of  the  old  epigram  about  language's  being  the 
means  by  which  we  conceal  our  thots ;  but  it  seems 
to  me  the  author  of  the  "Notes"  uses  it  to  take  the 
place  of  thots ;  feeling  that  something  must  be  said 
when  thots  are  lacking. 

Assuming  that  Ingersoll  should  confine  his  wri- 
tings on  slavery  to  a  dictionary  definition  of  it,  and 
basing  insulting  remarks  on  his  description  of  some 
of  its  evils,  he  closes  the  chapter  with  a  paragraph 
which  could  be  expected  of  this  man  alone — this 
man  who  is  described  as  genial,  gentlemanly  and 
courteous  by  the  Rev.  Patrick  Cronin,  the  writer 
of  the  preface  to  the  "Notes."  Here  is  the  paragraph 
in  which  he  comments  on  "To  lacerate  the  naked 
back,"  etc.: 


88  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Lambert.  "No,  it  is  poetry,  poor  poetry,  of 
course,  but  nevertheless  poetry,  for  it  is  the  prod- 
uct of  the  imagination.  You  do  not  seem  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Consult 
Webster's  Dictionary  or  your  law  books,  or  any 
books  that  pretend  to  give  definitions  of  things, 
and  you  will  find  that  the  definition  of  slavery  given 
by  you  is  not  found  in  any  of  them.  You  may  find 
something  like  it  in  the  frothy  ravings  of  lunatics, 
or  the  rhapsodies  of  poets,  but  when  pure  reason 
is  appealed  to  we  must  not  quote  the  mouthings 
of  lunatics  and  poets.  To  lacerate  the  naked  back 
is  a  cruelty  or  a  punishment  incident  to,  but  not 
confined  to  the  condition  of  slavery.  To  breed 
blood-hounds  is  no  more  wrong  than  to  breed 
canary  birds  or  poodles,  and  as  to  debauching  your 
soul,  that  is  done  with  facility  where  slavery  is  un- 
known except  in  name.  Then  slavery  is  none  of 
these,  altho  all  of  them  may  be  incident  to  that 
abnormal  relation  between  capital  and  labor." 

Comment.  It  is  right  to  make  a  correction  of 
my  own  comments  on  the  above.  It  is  not  right 
to  say  that  he  alone  was  capable  of  writing  as  he 
did.  I  was  thinking  of  his  book  and  it  is  the  only 
one  of  the  kind  I  have  seen.  But  there  are  more 
of  that  kind  of  people.  Their  number  may  be  es- 
timated according  to  the  opportunities  for  know- 
ing them. 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  89 

The  paragraph  last  quoted  brings  the  thot  that 
if  the  writer  would  confine  himself  to  copying  dic- 
tionary definitions  it  would  be  better  for  his  world ; 
for  he  does  have  an  influence.  Let  readers  judge 
whether  or  not  it  is  for  truth,  honor  and  justice. 

LIBERTY. 

Ingersoll.  "With  me,  liberty  is  not  merely  a 
means — it  is  an  end." 

Lambert.  "This  is  too  vague.  We  are  all  in 
favor  of  liberty,  as  we  understand  it,  but  we  do 
not  agree  as  to  what  it  ought  to  be.  It  is  a  foolish 
loss  of  time  to  caw  over  the  word  until  we  have  a 
common  idea  or  understanding  of  the  thing.  Do 
you  mean  by  the  word  the  liberty  Guiteau  exer- 
cised, or  that  of  the  Nihilists,  or  of  the  Mormons, 
or  that  of  the  thief,  the  robber,  or  the  murderer? 
All  these  appeal  to  liberty  as  vociferously  as  you 
do.  Do  you  not  see  that  the  word  liberty  must 
be  defined  and  limited — in  other  words,  that  it  must 
become  a  known  quantity  before  it  can  become  a 
legitimate  object  of  debate?  If  there  is  anything 
thoroughly  detested  and  abhorred  by  logicians  it 
is  a  word,  or  the  use  of  a  word,  that  has  no  fixed, 
clear  and  clean-cut  meaning  to  it.  You  use  the 
word  'liberty'  with  what  Shakespeare  would  call 
'damnable  iteration'  and  in  all  your  multifarious 


90  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

uses  of  it  you  have  never,  so  far  as  I  have  seen, 
given  a  definition  of  it.  'And  without  that  word 
all  other  words  are  empty  sounds.'  And  that 
word  without  a  definition — a  clear  and  fixed  mean- 
ing, intelligible  and  comprehensible  to  all  in  com- 
mon, is  the  emptiest  and  most  misleading  sound 
that  ever  echoed  in  time  and  space.  It  is  a  pet 
word  of  lunatics,  fools  and  philosophers,  so-called. 
It  is  like  a  piece  of  gum  elastic,  short  or  long,  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  him  who  fingers  it.  'O 
liberty!'  said  Madame  Roland,  as  she  was  carted 
to  the  guillotine,  'What  crimes  are  committed  in  thy 
name!'  The  Christian  loves  liberty  as  well  as  you 
do.  He  would  soar  from  planet  to  planet,  and 
from  star  to  star,  and  drink  in  the  immensity  of 
the  universe.  He  would  dive  into  the  center  of  our 
world  and  know  its  secrets.  He  would  penetrate 
to  the  ultimate  molecule  of  matter  and  know  its 
essence.  He  would  introvert  himself  and  know 
the  mystery  of  his  own  being,  but  the  liberty  to 
do  these  things  evades  his  grasp  as  the  ever-reced- 
ing rainbow  eludes  the  grasp  of  the  innocent  child 
who  hopes  to  bathe  his  dimpled  hands  in  its  rays 
by  crossing  over  a  field  or  two.  The  physical  and 
the  moral  law  stand  watch  on  the  limits  of  liberty 
and  cry  'halt'  when  we  even  think  to  go  beyond 
our  sphere." 

Comment.    About  three  hundred  more  words  on 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  QI 

liberty  follows  this.  Lack  of  space  makes  it  neces- 
sary to  state  the  idea  in  a  few  words: 

Lambert.  There  are  three  laws  equally  binding 
on  man,  physical,  intellectual  and  moral.  "The 
two  former  bind  him  in  such  a  way  that  he  has 
no  liberty  whatever,  and  therefore  he  is,  in  no 
way,  responsible  for  their  results."  He  is  respon- 
sible to  the  moral  law  only,  "for  it  is  thru  and  by 
this  law,  only,  that  he  can  possibly  antagonize 
God's  will  as  intellect  against  intellect.  Man,  then, 
is  no  more  free  in  the  moral  order  than  he  is  in 
the  physical  or  intellectual  order.  The  difference  is 
only  this:  he  has  it  in  his  power  to  confuse  the 
moral  order,  to  make  discord,"  and  to  do  this  is 
to  sin. 

Comment.  Reduced  to  its  lowest  terms  that 
would  be — Man  is  never  free.  If  I  had  given  the 
whole  paragraph,  the  emptiness  would  have  been 
the  same. 

To  take  these  comments  on  liberty  and  consider 
them  categorically:  When  two  people  are  arguing 
on  slavery  must  the  advocate  of  liberty  copy  Web- 
ster's definition  of  liberty  to  go  with  the  word 
whenever  he  uses  it,  in  order  to  make  himself  un- 
derstood? Would  anybody  ever  think  he  meant 
the  liberty  to  commit  crime?  Would  anybody  who 
wished  to  enter  honestly  into  a  discussion  of  slavery 
ever  think  of  any  connection  between  the  advocacy 


92  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

of  liberty  and  the  advocacy  of  crime?  "Pet  word 
of  lunatics,  fools  and  philosophers,  so-called" !  Is 
liberty  the  bug-bear  of  this  author  or  is  he  only 
pretending?  It  is  most  likely  he  feels  that  some- 
thing should  be  said  to  make  "some  of  the  people" 
think  Ingersoll  has  been  answered. 

I  am  sure  Madame  Roland  would  never  have 
made  that  remark  if  she  had  known  it  would  have 
been  used  forever  and  forever  as  if  it  were  an 
argument  against  liberty  by  those  who  hate  and 
fear  the  word,  and  condition  expressed  by  it. 

We  come  now  to  the  first  and  only  drop  into 
poetry  (this  is  using  his  "definition"  of  poetry, 
though  it  would  not  be  mine)  to  be  found  in  the 
"Notes,"  about  the  Christian's  loving  liberty,  want- 
ing to  soar  and  dive,  and  drink  in  the  universe,  and 
turn  himself  inwards — but  that  would  be  "going  be- 
yond our  sphere."  Second  thot  here  comes  in 
and  suggests  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  halt  for 
this  poetry. 

For  the  page  or  so  on  which  he  works  up  to  the 
conclusion  that  man  cannot  be  free  in  any  way, 
can  only  confuse  the  moral  order,  and  that  is  to 
sin — Well,  if  he  really  arrives  at  that  conclusion, 
no  wonder  he  hates  liberty. 

He  again  sets  up  liberty  as  his  target  when  he 
comes  to  the  subject  of  polygamy.  He  quotes  In- 
gersoll in  praise  of  liberty  and  demands  to  know 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  93 

why,  then,  he  objects  to  polygamy?  Besides,  he 
says,  there  is  no  principle  outside  of  revelation 
which  forbids  it,  and  it  is  inconsistent  for  Ingersoll 
to  find  it  a  disgusting  practice.  I  wonder  how 
many  would  admit  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  Bible 
they  might  all  be  polygamists  ?  The  most  of  us  feel 
as  if  there  were  something  revolting  about  the  prac- 
tice itself.  Mr.  Lambert  says  the  sentiment  or 
judgment  against  polygamy  is  the  result  of  the 
Christian  religion  and  Ingersoll  has  no  right  to  use 
its  weapons  in  combating  it.  Ingersoll  and  Black 
were  arguing  on  the  Old  Testament  (tho  there  is 
nothing  in  the  New  forbidding  polygamy.  It  says 
a  bishop  shall  have  one  wife.  I  do  not  know  whether 
that  is  generally  construed  to  mean  he  shall  be 
married,  or  shall  have  only  one  wife).  They  were 
arguing  about  the  ten  commandments  and  laws  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Mr.  Ingersoll  had  an  idea  that 
it  would  have  been  better  if  polygamy  had  been 
forbidden. 

I  did  think  it  was  my  duty  to  copy  for  you  Mr. 
Lambert's  thots  on  this  subject,  but  they  are  too- 
extraordinary,  and  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  send 
such  things  to  the  printer.  True,  they  were  printed 
once,  but  much  is  allowed  to  the  church. 

Ingersoll.  "Certainly  Jehovah  had  time  to  in- 
struct Moses  as  to  the  infamy  of  polygamy." 

Lambert,    "There  is  no  sense  in  this,  except  on 


94  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

the  assumption  that  you  know  more  about  the  sub- 
ject than  Jehovah — that  your  crude  notions  of  vir- 
tue and  propriety  should  govern  his  actions. 

"Rousseau,  an  Infidel  like  yourself,  but  an 
honester  and  abler  man,  has  given  a  description 
of  the  class  of  philosophers  to  which  you  belong, 
and  it  is  highly  worthy  of  attention  just  here." 

Comment.  It  is  a  long  string  of  denunciations 
of  philosophers,  which  he  ascribes  to  "Rousseau, 
as  quoted  by  Gandolphy  in  his  defense  of  the  An- 
cient Faith."  It  is  not  apropos  of  anything,  as  it 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Bible,  polygamy  or  In- 
fidels, unless  it  might  be  the  assertions  that  philos- 
ophers pretend  to  be  skeptics,  and  "among  believers, 
he"  (the  philosopher)  "is  an  Atheist,  among  Athe- 
ists he  is  a  believer."  Thruout  the  "Notes"  philoso- 
phers and  Infidels  are  treated  as  being  the  same. 
Whether  Rousseau  is  a  philosopher  or  not,  I  do 
not  know,  but  he  is  not  an  Infidel.  Popular  Biog- 
raphy, 1832,  by  Peter  Parley  gives  this:  "It  was 
not  till  1750  that  he  manifested  his  splendid  liter- 
ary talents.  In  that  year  he  gained  the  prize  given 
by  the  academy  of  Dijon  for  his  celebrated  Essay, 
in  answer  to  the  question,  'Whether  the  progress 
of  the  sciences  and  arts  has  contributed  to  corrupt 
or  purify  manners.'  He  maintained  that  the  effect 
had  been  injurious.  From  this  period  his  pen  be- 
came fertile  and  popular."  These  last  two  sen- 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  95 

tences  go  far  to  prove  he  remained  a  good  Catho- 
lic. The  Social  Contract  is  named  among  his  works 
in  this  sketch,  but  not  noticed  in  any  other  way. 
Johnson's  Cyclopedia  treats  him  as  a  very  bad  man, 
and  that  may  be  where  Mr.  Lambert  gets  his  ideas, 
tho  the  subject  of  religion  is  not  mentioned.  The 
New  International  Cyclopedia  has  a  more  complete 
sketch  of  him.  From  it  I  take  this:  It  tells  of 
his  Catholic  education;  says  that  he  visited  Geneva, 
gave  up  Catholicism  and  thus  was  allowed  to  as- 
sume his  rights  as  a  citizen.  (It  looks  plain  that 
he  became  a  Calvinist  in  name  only.)  Went  away 
with  the  intention  of  returning,  but  Voltaire  was 
there,  "and  Jean  Jacques  concluded  that  they  could 
not  live  near  each  other  in  so  small  a  place."  After 
his  letter  on  Providence,  addressed  to  Voltaire  in 
reply  to  his  poem  on  the  Lisbon  earthquake,  he 
had  written  as  his  declaration  of  war  against  not 
only  Voltaire,  but  all  his  associates,  the  Lettre  a 
d'Alembert  contra  les  Spectacles,  in  which  he  con- 
demns the  stage  as  a  school  of  immorality. 

Probably  Mr.  Lambert  thinks  that  political  and 
religious  unorthodoxy  are  so  closely  connected  that 
it  is  necessary  to  "slay  them  all"  without  adding  to 
the  order,  in  this  case,  "God  will  know  his  own." 

Ingersoll.  "Where  will  we  find,  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, the  rights  of  wife,  mother,  and  daughter 
defined?" 


96  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Lambert.  "They  are  found  in  the  warp  and 
woof  of  the  whole  book.  But,  before  particular- 
izing, it  is  necessary  to  know  what  you  mean  by 
these  rights,  and  if  your  notions  on  the  subject 
are  correct.  What  you  may  affirm  as  right  I  may 
deny.  Until  those  rights  are  determined  rightly 
and  independently  of  your  or  my  sentiments  or 
feelings,  the  question  of  what  the  Bible  says  on 
the  subject  cannot  be  intelligently  discussed." 

Ingersoll.  "Even  in  the  New  Testament  she 
(woman)  is  told  to  learn  in  silence  and  all  sub- 
jection." 

Lambert.  "Most  excellent  advice  for  man,  wom- 
an, or  child.  How  can  you  learn  otherwise  ?  Would 
you  have  the  learner  pert  and  impertinent?" 

Comment.  So  the  rights  of  woman  are  defined 
in  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  whole  book.  Why 
should  not  we  be  favored  with  a  few  of  the  ref- 
erences which  must  be  so  numerous,  if  found  in 
the  whole  warp  and  woof?  But  not  a  single  one 
is  cited. 

"It  is  necessary  to  know  what  you  mean  by 
rights,"  and  "it  depends  on  what  you  mean  by 
rights,"  or  "liberty,"  or  whatever  is  the  subject 
considered,  has  a  familiar  sound.  It  is  also  used 
by  the  Catholic  laity  when  they  cannot  answer; 
then  if  the  person  with  whom  they  are  conversing 
does  not  think  it  worth  while  to  pursue  the  dis- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  97 

cussion  their  first  evasion  is  all  that  is  necessary; 
if  he  should  explain  what  he  means  by  the  word 
then  they  can  bring  up  some  other  thots  which  they 
try  to  connect  with  some  other  conversation,  or  they 
can  call  up  some  imaginary  case,  making  it  fit  as 
well  as  possible. 

As  Mr.  Lambert  did  not  particularize  we  may 
presume  that  he  discovered  what  was  meant  by 
rights,  and  that  Mr.  Ingersoll's  notions  were  cor- 
rect. The  Bible  does  not  say  man,  woman  and 
child  should  learn  in  silence,  it  says  woman. 

So  far  Mr.  Lambert  has  answered  neither  of  the 
quotations ;  but  he  now  explains  the  Christian  idea : 
There  must  be  a  superior  in  the  marriage  relation, 
but  the  wife  is  not  subject  to  the  husband  as  a 
child  is  to  his  father,  or  a  slave  to  his  master,  but 
as  the  church  obeys  Christ. 

He  is  in  accord  with  the  Bible  in  that  last,  but 
it  is  understood  that  Christ  is  absolute  ruler,  so, 
if  that  meant  anything  her  subjection  would  be 
more  complete  than  in  the  two  other  cases.  He 
quotes  from  the  Bible,  giving  chapter  and  verse, 
but  supplying  the  places  of  some  of  it  with  dotted 
lines.  I  will  italicize  the  portions  he  omitted;  I 
will  also  give  Eph.  v,  22-23,  Par*  °f  which  he  did 
not  quote.  His  first  quotation  seems  to  me  per- 
fectly colorless,  but  I  will  put  it  all  in. 

"But  yet  neither  is  the  man  without  the  worn- 


98  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

an;  nor  the  woman  without  the  man  in  the  Lord. 
For  as  the  woman  is  of  the  man,  so  also  is  the 
man  by  the  woman;  but  all  things  of  God  (i  Cor. 
xi,  12).  Again:  Wives  submit  yourselves  unto 
your  own  husbands,  as  unto  the  Lord.  For  the  hus- 
band is  the  head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the 
head  of  the  church;  and  he  is  the  savior  of  the 
body.  Therefore,  as  the  church  is  subject  unto 
Christ,  so  let  the  wives  be  to  their  own  husbands 
in  everything.  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  as 
Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for 
it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the 
washing  of  the  water  by  the  word.  That  he  might 
present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church  not  having 
spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing;  but  that  it  should 
be  holy  and  without  blemish.  So  also  ought  men 
to  love  their  wives  as  their  own  bodies.  He  that 
loveth  his  wife  loveth  himself.  For  no  man  ever 
hateth  his  own  flesh ;  but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth 
it,  as  also  Christ  doth  the  church.  Because  we  are, 
members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones. 
For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and 
mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  shall 
be  two  of  one  flesh.  This  is  a  great  mystery;  but 
I  speak  concerning  Christ  and  the  church.  Never- 
theless, let  every  one  of  you  in  particular  love  his 
wife  as  himself ;  and  the  wife  see  that  she  reverence 
her  husband." 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  99 

"These  are  the  doctrines  that  have  liberated  wom- 
an," adds  the  priest,  and  this  ends  the  paragraph 
and  the  exposition  of  the  Christian  idea  of  the 
rights  of  woman. 

Before  I  noticed  the  omitted  texts  I  thot  what 
a  surprisingly  meager  showing  of  texts  proving 
doctrines  that  have  liberated  woman,  compared  with 
the  overwhelming  array  on  the  other  side!  The 
temptation  to  marshal  that  array  is  strong,  but 
time  is  limited.  Besides  it  does  not  seem  neces- 
sary since  the  parts  omitted  by  the  author  of  the 
"Notes"  have  been  supplied. 

He  quotes,  "In  no  country  in  the  world  have 
women  less  liberty  than  in  the  Holy  Land,"  and 
again  says,  "It  depends  upon  what  you  mean  by 
liberty,"  continuing  in  a  way  to  show  that  he  takes 
it  in  the  sense  of  dissoluteness.  If  he  could  drop 
the  word  liberty  from  the  language  as  he  tries  to 
keep  the  thing  itself  from  the  world,  how  it  would 
•simplify  matters  for  him!  As  it  is,  the  only  thing 
he  can  do  is  to  try  to  attach  some  bad  meaning  to 
the  word. 

Ingersoll.  "Under  the  domination  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  woman  was  the  merest  slave  for  at 
least  a  thousand  years.  It  was  claimed  that  thru 
woman  the  race  had  fallen,  and  that  her  loving 
kiss  had  poisoned  all  the  springs  of  life." 

Lambert.    Of  the  first  sentence  he  says:  "This 


ioo  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

is  too  general  and  indefinite."  General  statements 
can  be  met  only  by  general  denials,  and  calls  for 
proofs;  Christianity  raised  woman  and  put  her 
at  the  side  of  man;  the  fall  was  thru  Adam;  and 
the  last  part  he  answered  with  the  single  word, 
"Fudge!" 

Comment.  That  last  answer  is  short,  and  better 
than  his  usual  device — a  deluge  of  obscuring  words. 
It  does  take  such  a  long  time  to  read  them,  and 
they  must  be  troublesome  to  write,  tho  they  do  fill 
up  when  he  cannot  afford  to  answer  in  good  faith. 

By  way  of  answer  to  Mr.  Ingersoll's  summary 
of  the  qualities  of  Mr.  Black's  God,  and  request 
that  he  would  have  the  kindness  to  state  a  few 
of  his  objections  to  the  devil,  Mr.  Lambert,  affect- 
ing not  to  see  the  point,  writes  this:  "He  is  the 
prince  of  liars,  full  of  sophistry  and  deceit,  mis- 
leading and  unreliable — a  purveyor  of  Dead  Sea 
apples." 

Just  below  we  have  more  undignified  and  irrel- 
evant comments  about  the  Jews  kicking  out  the 
Canaanites  on  the  toe  of  their  sandals.  Ingersoll's 
question  was  about  persecuting  for  opinion's  sake 
heathen  philosophers  who  taught  that  all  men  were 
brothers,  equally  entitled  to  liberty  and  life. 

After  a  page  in  which  he  says  man  "became  a 
victim  not  of  evolution  but  devilution" ;  that  God 
knew  his  revelation  would  be  abused  (not  answer- 


VIEW    OF   LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  IOI 

ing  the  charge  that  it  had  been  a  "breastwork  be- 
hind which  tyranny  and  hypocrisy  would  crouch"), 
but  wouldn't  deny  it  to  man  because  he  knew  "the 
hypocrite  would  deny  it  and  blaspheme,"  and  that 
it  would  be  "misrepresented  by  hypocrites  called 
Infidels"  (why  was  it  not  worth  while  to  point 
out  the  "misrepresentations"  instead  of  continually 
making  unproved  charges?).  After  this  page  ap- 
pears another  example  of  foolish  trifling,  on  page 
121,  on  the  text  "He  knew  that  he  taught  the  Jew- 
ish people  little  of  importance."  (This  follows,  "If 
Jehovah  was  in  fact  God,  he  knew,"  etc.) 

Lambert.  "You  only  imagine  that  you  know 
this.  You  must  not  confound  your  knowledge  with 
that  of  Jehovah.  How  do  you  know  that  he  knew  ? 
You  evidently  do  not  need  to  pray  the  old  Scotch 
dominie's  prayer,  'O  Lord,  gie  us  a  gude  conceit  o' 
ourselV  " 

Comment.  His  own  opinion  as  to  whether  or 
not  Jehovah  knew  is  not  here  divulged,  and  the 
paragraph  seems  to  be  thrown  in  for  an  exhibition 
of  smartness. 

POLYGAMY,  SLAVERY  AND  WAR,  WITH 
PERSONALITIES  FOR  DESSERT. 

IngersolL  "I  here  take  occasion  to  thank  Mr. 
Black  for  having  admitted  that  Jehovah  gave  no 


IO2  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

commandment  against  the  practice  of  polygamy, 
that  he  established  slavery,  waged  wars  of  exter- 
mination, and  persecuted  for  opinion's  sake  even 
unto  death." 

Lambert.  "First.  You  must  have  been  in  a  very 
gushing  humor  when  you  so  formally  thanked  your 
opponent  for  admitting  what  no  Christian  ever 
dreamt  of  denying.  Your  opponent  said  that  'if 
you  were  a  statesman  instead  of  a  mere  politician 
you  would  see  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  the 
forbearance  to  legislate  directly'  [there  was  no 
legislation  direct  or  indirect]  'on  this  subject 
(polygamy),  and  that  it  would  be  improper  for 
him  to  set  them  forth'  in  an  article  intended  for 
the  general  reader.  Not  being  a  statesman,  a  moral- 
ist, or  a  physician,  you,  of  course,  do  not  see  those 
things  to  which  your  opponent  delicately  directs 
your  attention." 

Comment.  This  is  very  puzzling.  What  can  be 
the  justification  of  polygamy  which  it  would  be 
indelicate  for  Mr.  Black  and  Mr.  Lambert  to  give 
— which  a  statesman,  a  moralist,  and  physician 
could  see,  but  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  the  rest 
of  us  cannot  see? — admitting,  for  the  sake  of  in- 
formation only,  that  we  are  not  moralists.  If  the 
writer  of  pages  105-108  of  the  "Notes"  might 
be  suspected  of  sincerity  I  should  never  think  of 
making  the  inquiry. 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  IO3 

Lambert.  "Second.  When  you  say  Mr.  Black 
admitted  that  Jehovah  established  slavery  you  say 
what  is  not  true.  It  is  the  height  of  unwisdom 
to  make  a  statement  that  is  so  easily  refuted.  Your 
thanks  were  premature,  as  Mr.  Black  never,  at 
least  in  the  article  you  reply  to,  admitted  anything 
of  the  kind.  He  said:  'Jehovah  permitted  his 
chosen  people  to  hold  the  captives  they  took  in 
war  or  purchased  from  the  heathen  as  servants  for 
life.'  That  is  he  permitted  the  Jews  to  follow  the 
customs  of  the  times  in  this  matter.  Is  this  an 
admission  that  Jehovah  established  slavery?  Like 
a  lawyer  more  'cute'  than  cunning  and  able,  you 
change  the  word  permitted  to  established.  You  do 
not  need  to  be  told  that  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween permit  and  establish.  It  is  unbecoming  in 
the  great  apostle  of  'candor'  and  'honor  bright'  to 
thus  misrepresent  his  antagonist,  and  it  must  bring 
a  blush  of  shame  even  to  your  cheek  to  be  caught 
in  such  petty  chicanery." 

Comment.  Both  disputants  meant  the  Bible 
laws,  and  it  may  be  found  by  reading  that  book 
that  established  is  the  correct  word.  Mr.  Black 
did  say  authorized,  but  that  word  does  not  make 
any  change  in  the  meaning.  If  the  law  distinctly 
authorizes  slavery  by  deciding  authoritatively  who 
may  be  held  as  slaves,  and  by  regulating  the  insti- 
tution— like  this :  "Notwithstanding  if  he  continue" 


IO4  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

(to  live)  "a  day  or  two"  (after  the  smiting  with  a 
rod)  "he"  (the  master)  "shall  not  be  punished;  for 
he  is  his  money" — undoubtedly  that  is  estab- 
lishing slavery.  In  another  place  Mr.  Black  did 
say,  "Jehovah  permitted  his  chosen  people  to  hold 
the  captives  they  took  in  war  or  purchased  from 
the  heathen  as  servants  for  life."  Permitting  the 
enslavement  of  captives  and  the  buying  of  slaves 
from  the  "heathen"  was  certainly  establishing 
slavery.  As  an  act  of  Jehovah  authorizing,  permit- 
ting, and  establishing,  are  the  same.  The  last  sen- 
tence of  Mr.  Lambert's  criticism  supplies  an  ex- 
cellent word  to  describe  his  method  of  word  jug- 
gling in  place  of  fair  discussion — chicanery. 

In  his  "Third"  about  wars  of  extermination,  he 
takes  up  his  definition  plan  again  instead  of  an- 
swering. He  says  exterminate  is  from  ex  and 
tirminus  and  means  to  drive  from  the  border,  to 
expel,  to  drive  out.  While  it  is  true  about  the 
derivation  of  the  word,  it  is  not  true  that  by  com- 
mon usage  it  is  defined  in  that  sense.  It  is  used 
according  to  Webster's  definition  "to  utterly  des- 
troy"; and  if  we  did  not  know  it  before,  would 
not  Jehovah's  command  to  leave  alive  nothing  that 
breathes  show  that  it  did  not  mean  to  drive  out? 

Continuing  the  denial  in  detail  of  the  specifica- 
tions he  had  admitted  all  together  he  charges  mis- 
representation of  Mr.  Black  when  Ingersoll  said 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  105 

that  he  admitted  that  Jehovah  persecuted  for  opin- 
ion's sake,  even  unto  death ;  and  "God  as  God  holds 
his  intelligent  creatures  responsible  for  every  thot, 
but  God  as  the  temporal  monarch  of  Judea  inflict- 
ed punishment  only  for  overt  acts."  What  were 
those  overt  acts  to  be  punished  with  death  by  the 
command  of  Jehovah?  Praising  another  religion? 
Engaging  in  some  unfashionable  form  of  worship? 
If  no  one  was  punished  for  opinion's  sake  it  must 
have  been  for  the  expression  of  opinion.  But  this 
is  what  Mr.  Black  wrote  which  Mr.  Lambert  said 
was  misrepresented,  "But  things  were  wholly  dif- 
ferent under  the  Jewish  theocracy"  [different  from 
a  country  like  ours]  "where  God  was  the  per- 
sonal head  of  the  state.  There  blasphemy  was  a 
breach  of  political  allegiance ;  idolatry  was  an  overt 
act  of  treason;  to  worship  the  gods  of  the  hostile 
heathen  was  deserting  to  the  enemy  and  giving  him 
aid  and  comfort.  These  are  crimes  which  every 
independent  community  has  always  punished  with 
the  utmost  rigor.  In  our  own  very  recent  history 
they  were  repressed  at  the  cost  of  more  lives  than 
Judea  ever  contained  at  any  one  time." 

Comment.  This  shows  that  Ingersoll  did  not 
misrepresent  as  charged. 

Though  Jehovah  is  not  the  temporal  ruler  of 
this  state,  we  have  blasphemy  and  idolatry  here. 
The  expression  of  one  man's  religious  opinions 


io6  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

may  be  very  shocking  to  some  other  man  of  dif- 
ferent views;  that  is  blasphemy.  The  earnest 
prayer  of  one  is  an  astonishing  exhibition  of  idola- 
try to  another.  What  a  state  of  affairs  if  certain 
of  these  opinions  and  modes  of  worship  were  called 
treason  for  which  the  penalty  is  death! 

Altho  Mr.  Lambert  says  on  page  121  that  Mr. 
Ingersoll  thanked  Mr.  Black  for  admitting  what  no 
Christian  ever  dreamt  of  denying,  he  again  charges 
on  page  123  misrepresentation  in  saying  that  Mr. 
Black  admits  what  most  theologians  deny,  for,  says 
Mr.  Lambert,  the  admissions  were  never  made  by 
him;  he  says  that  Mr.  Black  admits  the  truth,  but 
not  what  Ingersoll  states;  that  Mr.  Black  is  not  a 
theologian;  "he  has  made  some  admissions,  not  of 
fact  but  of  principle,  which  he  should  not  have 
made;  and  taken  certain  positions  which  he  cannot 
hold  successfully;  and,  singular  as  it  may  seem  to 
him  and  you,  those  positions  are  the  very  ones 
which  are  not  Christian."  (The  very  next  sentence 
in  the  same  paragraph  is  remarkable.  The  subject 
was  polygamy,  slavery,  wars  of  extermination,  and 
persecution  for  opinion's  sake.)  "One  instance 
will  suffice.  Mr.  Black  says  that  the  creation  was 
a  miracle.  Theologians  do  not  agree  with  him  in 
this." 

Let  us  put  those  things  close  together  for  a 
plainer  view.  Black  admitted  these  things  which 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  107 

no  Christian  denies ;  he  does  not  admit  them ;  those 
admissions  "for  which  you  credit  him  at  the  ex- 
pense of  theologians"  were  never  made  by  him ;  he 
made  admissions  which  he  should  not  have  made, 
and  has  taken  positions  which  he  cannot  hold  suc- 
cessfully, and  these  positions  are  not  Christian ;  one 
instance  will  suffice:  He  says  the  creation  was  a 
miracle.  This  was  written  and  published,  and  is 
to  be  found  on  pages  121-124  of  the  "Notes." 
The  chapter  is  concluded  with  these  gems : 
Lambert.  "Now  as  to  the  theologians,  at  whom 
you  take  your  fling  over  Mr.  Black's  shoulders,  I 
will  say  this  of  them :  If  they  were  guilty  of  as  much 
puttying  and  patching,  misrepresentation,  low  trick- 
ery, cunning,  deceit,  flattering  of  popular  passions 
and  errors,  as  you  have  perpetrated  in  this  one 
article  of  yours,  I  would  be  disposed  to  look  upon 
them  as  sharpers  of  the  meanest  order  who  were 
inspired,  not  by  the  genius  of  Christianity,  but  of 
infidelity. 

"You  deem  it  no  offense  against  decency  to  ac- 
cuse theologians  of  intention  to  perpetrate  and  per- 
petuate fraud,  to  call  them  hypocrites,  etc.,  and  yet 
if  they  turn  on  you  and  call  you  a  speculator  whe 
turns  falsehood  into  dollars,  a  fraud,  and  a  liar, 
you  begin  to  whimper  about  the  Master  who  tells 
them  to  turn  the  other  cheek.  You  are  a  brave 
man.  You  challenge  to  mortal  combat,  and  on  the 


io8  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

field  you  seriously  tell  your  antagonist  that  he  can- 
not, and  must  not,  according  to  his  principles,  blow 
your  brains  out ;  while  you  claim  to  shoot  him  thru 
the  heart  if  you  can.  There  is  no  epithet  in  your 
vocabulary  low  or  venomous  enough  to  fling  at 
priests  and  theologians,  but  when  a  'policeman,' 
like  Mr.  Black,  ventures  to  catalog  you,  you  are 
up  in  indignation,  and  whine  and  whimper  about 
decency  and  the  etiquette  of  debate." 

Comment.  When  Ingersoll  says  theologians  gen- 
erally try  to  fix  up  the  record,  but  Mr.  Black  is 
honest  enough  to  admit  it  as  it  is — that  could  neve* 
be  called  whipping  them  over  his  shoulders;  but 
if  Ingersoll  had  meant  to  criticize  them  and  feared 
to  do  it,  so  charged  him  with  fault,  when  people 
knew  the  criticism  applied  to  them,  that  would  be 
whipping  them  over  his  shoulders.  Of  course,  tho, 
everybody  knows  that  and  knows  Ingersoll's  lan- 
guage was  straightforward. 

Anyone  who  reads  Ingersoll  will  find  the  malevo- 
lent adjectives  in  this  paragraph  entirely  inappro- 
priate to  him.  In  my  opinion  the  outcome,  in  any 
court,  of  a  trial  for  calling  him  a  fraud  and  a  liar 
would  be  disastrous  for  this  priest,  unless  some 
one  should  be  able  to  rake  up  some  old  statute  for 
the  benefit  of  clergy. 

This  is  what  Lambert  calls  whimpering:  "For  a 
man  who  is  a  'Christian  policeman'  and  has  taken 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  IOQ 

upon  himself  to  defend  the  Christian  religion;  for 
one  who  follows  the  Master  who  said  that  when 
smitten  on  one  cheek  you  must  turn  the  other,  and 
who  again  and  again  enforced  the  idea  that  you 
must  overcome  evil  with  good,  it  is  hardly  con- 
sistent to  declare  that  a  civilized  nation  must  of 
necessity  adopt  the  warfare  of  savages."  I  know 
of  no  one  but  Mr.  Lambert  who  calls  Ingersoll  "a 
speculator  who  turns  falsehood  into  dollars."  In- 
gersoll was  not  answering  any  personality.  He  re- 
fused to  answer  personal  insult,  except  references 
which  I  shall  quote,  but  kept  directly  on  with  the 
argument. 

Mr.  Black  said  his  duty  was  analogous  to  that 
of  a  policeman,  so  the  reference  to  a  policeman 
was  not  an  expression  of  contempt  for  anybody — 
policeman  or  judge. 

Ingersoll.  "Mr.  Black  should  have  answered  my 
arguments  instead  of  calling  me  'blasphemous'  and 
'scurrilous.'  In  the  discussion  of  these  questions  I 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  reputation  of  my  op- 
ponent." 

Comment.  I  will  give  another  extract  showing 
what  Ingersoll  said  concerning  disparaging  epithets 
and  his  protest  against  personalities.  These  will 
show  the  ostensible  grounds  for  the  imputation  in 
the  last  paragraph  of  chapter  xiv.  To  answer  what 
Lambert  said  about  challenging  to  mortal  combat  I 


no  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

will  begin  back  a  little  ways.  Bear  in  mind  this 
answer  of  Ingersoll  to  Black  is  the  very  thing  Lam- 
bert is  professing  to  answer. 

Ingersoll.  "Not  until  the  article,  'Is  All  of  the 
Bible  Inspired?'  was  written  did  I  know  who  was 
expected  to  answer.  I  make  this  explanation  for 
the  purpose  of  dissipating  the  impression  that  Mr. 
Black  had  been  challenged  by  me.  To  have  struck 
his  shield  with  my  lance  might  have  given  birth  to 
the  impression  that  I  was  somewhat  doubtful  as 
to  the  correctness  of  my  position.  I  naturally  ex- 
pected an  answer  from  some  professional  theo- 
logian, and  was  surprised  to  find  that  a  reply  had 
been  written  by  a  'policeman'  who  imagined  that 
he  had  answered  my  arguments  by  simply  telling 
me  that  my  statements  were  false.  It  is  somewhat 
unfortunate  that  in  a  discussion  like  this  anyone 
should  resort  to  the  slightest  personal  detraction. 
The  theme  is  great  enough  to  engage  the  highest 
faculties  of  the  human  mind,  and  in  the  investi- 
gation of  such  a  subject,  vituperation  is  singularly 
and  vulgarly  out  of  place.  Arguments  cannot  be 
answered  with  insults.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the 
intellectual  arena  should  be  entered  by  a  'police- 
man' who  has  more  confidence  in  concussion  than 
discussion.  Kindness  is  strength,  good  nature  is 
often  mistaken  for  virtue,  and  good  health  some- 
times passes  for  genius.  Anger  blows  out  the  lamp 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  in 

of  the  mind.  In  the  examination  of  a  great  and 
important  question,  every  one  should  be  serene, 
slow-pulsed  and  calm.  Intelligence  is  not  the  foun- 
dation of  arrogance.  Insolence  is  not  logic.  Epi- 
thets are  the  arguments  of  malice.  Candor  is  the 
courage  of  the  soul.  Leaving  the  objectionable  por- 
tions of  Mr.  Black's  reply,  feeling  that  so  grand  a 
subject  should  not  be  blown  and  tainted  with  ma- 
licious words,  I  proceed  to  answer  as  best  I  may 
the  arguments  he  has  urged." 

THE  BIBLE— SLA  VERY. 

Chapter  xv  begins  with  the  accusation  that  In- 
gersoll  "assumes  to  determine  what  is  monstrous, 
miraculous,  impossible  and  immoral,"  speaks  of 
"an  Infidel  offering  his  crude  notions  as  ultimate 
principles  or  axioms,"  and  says  that  is  deciding  in 
his  own  favor — playing  counsel  and  judge  at  the 
same  time. 

Comment.  The  assumption  that  every  right- 
minded  being  would  determine  that  assassination 
and  many  other  crimes  were  monstrous,  etc.,  would 
be  fully  warranted.  Does  Mr.  Lambert  "assume 
to  determine"  otherwise?  In  these  two  rather  long 
paragraphs  of  his  not  a  single  argument  appears; 
and  the  same  is  true  of  the  two  very  long  para- 
graphs at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter. 


112  VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES. 

Mr.  Black  wrote:  "I  do  not  enumerate  in  detail 
the  positive  proofs  which  support  the  authenticity 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  tho  they  are  at  hand  in  great 
abundance,  because  the  evidence  in  support  of  the 
new  dispensation  will  establish  the  verity  of  the 
old — the  two  being  so  connected  together  that  if 
one  is  true  the  other  cannot  be  false."  In  his  an- 
swer Ingersoll  begins  his  argument  on  that  point 
by  saying :  "Mr.  Black  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Hebrew  Bible  is  in  exact  harmony  with  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  the  two  are  'connected 
together';  and,  'that  if  one  is  true  the  other  can- 
not be  false.' "  The  volunteer  champion  quotes 
the  first  part  of  the  paragraph,  and  says,  "Mr. 
Black  comes  to  no  such  conclusion";  tho  it  is  true 
they  are  so  closely  connected  together,  etc.  He 
says  this  is  very  different  from  what  Ingersoll  rep- 
resents. 

There  is  a  great  sameness  about  these  rude  and 
unreasonable  contradictions,  but  they  should  all 
be  answered.  But,  imagine  some  one  in  your  par- 
lor, who,  whenever  someone  makes  a  remark, 
bristles  up  and  shouts  vehemently,  "It  is  no  such 
thing."  "It  is  nothing  of  the  kind."  "It  is  a  lie." 
"That  is  only  your  conceit."  "You  rave  like  a 
lunatic." 

To  return  to  this  volunteer  in  the  war  against 
Ingersoll.  You  will  notice  that  in  the  sentence  now 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  113 

under  discussion,  in  the  part  where  Ingersoll  does 
not  give  the  direct  quotation,  he  gives  Mr.  Black's 
idea  exactly.  The  volunteer  does  not  expect  his 
readers  to  know  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Black  and 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  except  as  they  are  presented  by  him. 

Ingersoll.  "It  hardly  seems  possible  to  me  that 
there  is  a  right-minded,  sane  man,  except  Mr. 
Black,  who  believes  that  a  God  of  infinite  kind- 
ness and  justice  ever  commanded  one  nation  to  ex- 
terminate another." 

Lambert.  "It  no  doubt  appears  strange  and 
hardly  possible  to  you,  after  your  prodigal  use  of 
deceit  and  sophistry,  that  anyone  should  believe 
anything  at  all.  When  God  commands  one  nation 
to  exterminate  another  the  Christian  believes  that 
there  is  a  very  serious  reason  for  it.  He  believes 
that  God  knows  more  than  he,  and  does  not  think 
that  to  be  a  philosopher  it  is  necessary  to  exhaust 
the  resources  of  his  lachrymal  glands  on  every 
guilty  wretch  and  law-breaker  whom  the  God  of 
Justice  sees  proper  to  lash  or  exterminate.  God 
makes  instruments  of  nations  to  punish  nations." 

Comment.  It  is  characteristic  of  Mr.  Lambert 
to  pick  out  guilty  wretches  and  law-breakers,  as 
if  they  were  the  only  ones  who  suffered,  when  the 
subject  was  the  extermination  of  all  the  people  of 
a  nation.  The  subject  of  the  Ingersoll-Black  de- 
bate was,  Is  All  of  the  Bible  Inspired?  Among 


H4  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

the  reasons  given  for  believing  the  bad  passages 
were  not  was  the  one  that  in  it  God  was  represented 
as  commanding  wars  of  conquest  and  extermina- 
tion. "When  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  drive  them 
before  thee,  thou  shalt  smite  them,  and  utterly 
destroy  them;  thou  shalt  make  no  covenant  with 
them,  nor  show  mercy  unto  them."  The  question 
is  asked  whether  it  is  possible  that  a  being  of  in- 
finite goodness  and  wisdom  said  this:  "I  will  heap 
mischief  upon  them;  I  will  send  mine  arrows 
among  them;  they  shall  be  burned  with  hunger, 
and  devoured  with  burning  heat,  and  with  bitter 
destruction.  I  will  send  the  tooth  of  beasts  upon 
them,  with  the  poison  of  serpents  of  the  dust.  The 
sword  without,  the  terror  within,  shall  destroy  both 
the  young  man  and  the  virgin,  the  suckling  also, 
with  the  man  of  gray  hairs." 

Ingersoll's  comment  on  this  is  what  the  priest 
calls  "exhausting  the  resources  of  his  lachrymal 
glands  on  every  guilty  wretch  and  law-breaker." 
Does  he  choose  his  insolent  and  sneering  expres- 
sions, or  does  he  shake  them  up  and  draw? 

Lambert  devotes  the  next  two  pages  to  denying 
that  Mr.  Black  made  any  effort  to  prove  that  God 
established  slavery  in  Judea ;  to  saying  that  In- 
gersoll  blundered  in  his  haste  and  failed  to  un- 
derstand Black  when  he  said  that  the  doctrine  that 
slavery  was  a  crime  under  all  circumstances  was 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  115 

started,  etc.,  less  than  forty  years  ago;  that  Black 
took  it  for  granted  that  Ingersoll  "knew  the  dif- 
ference between  what  is  wrong  in  itself  and  what 
is  wrong  by  circumstance."  "Your  opponent  was 
too  good  a  historian  to  say  that  the  anti-slavery 
movement  began  only  forty  years  ago.  Since  the 
advent  of  Christianity  slavery  has  been  considered 
a  social  and  circumstantial  evil,  an  improper  rela- 
tion between  labor  and  capital,  but  it  was  never 
considered  by  men  of  healthy  brains  an  evil  per  se, 
an  evil  in  its  nature  and  essence.  This  is  what 
Mr.  Black  meant  by  'all  circumstances,'  but  you 
were  in  such  a  hurry  you  could  not  see  it.  This 
distinction  takes  all  the  pith  from  your  eloquence 
on  this  point."  Christianity,  he  says,  began  the  anti- 
slavery  movement;  its  Councils  tried  to  abolish  it 
or  to  mitigate  its  severities.  As  Black  did  not  say 
the  movement  began  forty  years  ago,  but  the  doc- 
trine that  it  was  wrong  under  all  circumstances 
began  then,  "your  argument  loses  its  wind."  Chris- 
tianity antagonized  slavery  by  legislation;  he  gives 
the  names  and  dates  of  "some  of  the  Councils 
which  legislated  to  protect  the  slave."  "Pope  Greg- 
ory XVI.  in  1839  published  apostolic  letters  against 
the  slave  trade."  Anti-slavery  is  a  Christian  thot. 
Comment.  In  all  these  pages  of  Mr.  Lambert's 
I  do  not  find  any  information  as  to  the  circum- 
stances which  make  slavery  right  in  his  opinion. 


n6  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

He  seemed  to  consent  to  whatever  Mr.  Black  said 
on  the  subject,  and  Mr.  Black  thot  it  right  to  make 
slaves  of  captives  (if  it  is  right,  according  to  the 
Bible,  I  suppose  he  would  think  it  right  forever), 
and  to  buy  them  of  the  heathen.  I  suppose  that 
means  the  Gentiles,  tho  it  may  take  in  all  not  of 
the  Jewish  religion.  Those  are  the  only  circum- 
stances given  in  which  slavery  is  right,  as  far  as 
learned  from  the  two  apologists.  When  Jehovah's 
people  warred  among  themselves  they  could  not 
make  slaves  of  their  captives,  for  they  were  com- 
manded to  "save  alive  nothing  that  breathed."  Here 
we  have  a  case  in  which  slavery  was  wrong.  I 
wish  Mr.  Black,  Mr.  Lambert,  or  any  of  those 
Protestants  and  Catholics  who  were  united  by  the 
"Notes,"  and  took  Mr.  Lambert  "cordially  by  the 
hand  as  a  vigorous  and  successful  defender  of 
Christianity,"  would  enumerate  the  times  and  cir- 
cumstances in  which  slavery  is  right.  The  Bible 
tells  us,  by  implication,  of  the  case  where  it  is 
wrong,  for  captives — men,  women  and  children  and 
all  animals — must  be  killed.  Now  if  some  of  the 
cordially  united  sectarians  would  only  risk  sustain- 
ing Ingersoll  to  that  extent  and'  try  to  think  of 
some  other  cases  in  which  it  may  be  wrong,  tho 
it  is  never  wrong  in  itself! 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  117 

RISE  OF   CHRISTIANITY    PROOF   OF    ITS 
DIVINE  ORIGIN. 

Mr.  Black  said:  "I  do  not  enumerate  in  detail 
the  positive  proofs  which  support  the  authority  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  tho  they  are  at  hand  in  great 
abundance,  because  the  evidence  in  support  of  the 
new  dispensation  will  establish  the  verity  of  the 
old — the  two  being  so  closely  connected  together 
that  if  one  is  true  the  other  cannot  be  false." 

I  can  find  nothing  in  Mr.  Black's  essay  which 
seems  to  be  intended  to  prove  the  authenticity  of 
the  Old  Testament.  He  does  try  to  show  that  the 
God  delineated  in  the  Old  Testament  is  moral  and 
excusable  for  his  acts,  tho  they  would  at  this  day 
be  pronounced  infamous  by  all  people.  That  argu- 
ment is  expected  to  show  that  the  Bible  might  be 
written  by  the  inspiration  of  God,  but  it  does  not 
seem  to  be  anything  that  would  be  understood  as 
an  argument  for  its  authenticity.  If  inspiration 
were  shown  by  ascribed  goodness,  Tobit  would 
stand  a  better  chance  of  being  inspired  than  Joshua. 

Mr.  Black  carries  on  his  argument  for  the 
"truth"  of  the  New  Testament  and  Christianity 
together.  Beginning  with  the  early  difficulties  and 
rapid  rise  of  Christianity  he  ends  this  phase  of  the 
argument  thus :  "Is  it  Mr.  Ingersoll's  idea  that  this 
happened  by  chance,  like  the  creation  of  the  world  ?" 


n8  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

(Mr.  Black  is  not  my  theme,  except  so  far  as  it 
is  necessary  to  speak  of  him  for  an  understanding 
of  Mr.  Lambert,  so  I  pass  that  sentence  by.)  "If 
not,  there  are  but  two  other  ways  to  account  for 
it;  either  the  evidence  by  which  the  apostles  were 
able  to  prove  the  supernatural  origin  was  over- 
whelming and  irresistible,  or  else  its  propagation 
was  provided  for  and  carried  on  by  the  direct  aid 
of  the  Divine  Being  himself.  Between  these  two 
infidelity  may  make  its  own  choice." 

Mr.  Ingersoll  brings  forward  the  rapid  rise  of 
the  anti-slavery  sentiment,  giving  a  short  summary 
of  what  it  had  accomplished  in  less  than  forty 
years,  and  asks  if  that  happened  by  chance,  or 
proved  that  it  was  of  supernatural  origin,  or  pro- 
vided for  and  carried  on  by  the  direct  aid  of  the 
Divine  Being  himself?  He  says  the  same  argu- 
ment applies  to  all  religions,  and  says  that  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Black's  position  Mohammed  was  most 
certainly  the  prophet  of  God.  "Years  before  Gau- 
tama died  his  religion  was  established  and  his  dis- 
ciples numbered  by  millions,"  and,  "more  than  one- 
third  of  the  human  race  are  today  the  followers 
of  Gautama."  A  Brahmin  could  use  the  same 
arguments  as  Mr.  Black.  "Egypt,  the  mysterious 
mother  of  mankind,  with  her  pyramids  built  thirty- 
four  hundred  years  before  Christ,  was  once  the 
first  in  all  the  earth,  and  gave  to  us  our  trinity, 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  ,  NOTES.  119 

and  our  symbol  of  the  cross.  Could  not  a  priest 
of  Isis  and  Osiris  have  used  your  arguments  to 
prove  that  his  religion  was  divine,  and  could  he 
not  have  closed  by  saying,  "From  the  facts  estab- 
lished by  this  evidence  it  follows  irresistibly  that 
our  religion  conies  from  God  ?" 

It  is  said  that  a  snapping  turtle  never  puts  his 
head  out  of  his  shell  without  snapping  at  some- 
thing. 

Mr.  Lambert  snaps  again;  denies  that  Mr.  Black 
took  the  position  that  the  rapid  rise  of  Christian- 
ity demonstrated  its  divine  character,  "altho  you 
labor  to  make  your  readers  believe  that  he  did. 
Theologians  do  not  teach  that  rapidity  of  rise  and 
spread,  taken  alone,  is  evidence  of  the  divine 
character  of  Christianity.  Hence,  your  several 
pages  devoted  to  show  the  unsoundness  of  that 
position  are  so  much  waste  paper.  It  is  a  loss  of 
time  as  well  to  overthrow  a  position  that  no  one 
holds — that  has  no  existence,  except  in  your  vivid 
imagination."  He  quotes  from  Mr.  Black,  show- 
ing it  was  just  as  Ingersoll  said;  then  he  goes  on 
to  say  this  was  the  statement  of  facts,  but  Mr. 
Black  goes  on  to  speak  of  "the  circumstances  un- 
der which  this  rapid  rise  took  place." 

Comment.  Yes,  and  so  did  Mr.  Ingersoll  speak 
of  those  circumstances.  When  I  came  to  "cir- 
cumstances" as  the  excuse  for  all  that  blustering 


I2O  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

denial  I  remembered  little  Davy  who  in  his  dream 
was  walking  thru  the  woods  when  he  came  upon 
a  number  of  little  people,  one  of  them  with  a  gun. 
The  one  with  the  gun  would  load  it,  and  the  others 
would  gather  around  him  and  watch  the  loading. 
Whenever  it  was  ready  to  be  fired  the  others  would 
all  run  away  and  hide  themselves  behind  trees  and 
bushes  until  the  gun  was  fired.  Every  time  it  was 
fired  the  ball  would  roll  gently  out  and  fall  at  the 
feet  of  the  gunner.  After  this  had  been  done  sev- 
eral times  Davy  went  up  to  the  marksman  and 
asked  how  it  was  that  the  ball  always  rolled  down 
to  his  feet?  The  gunner  answered,  "That  is  be- 
cause it  is  loaded  with  tooth  powder." 

Mr.  Lambert  often  loads  with  tooth  powder,  but 
I  never  saw  anyone  run  and  hide. 

He  grants,  for  argument's  sake,  he  says,  that 
other  religions  rose  as  rapidly,  but  did  they  arise 
under  like  circumstances,  and  did  they  meet  and 
overcome  like  obstacles? 

Whether  the  obstacles  were  exactly  alike  or  not 
does  not  affect  the  argument.  The  rapid  rise  of 
Christianity  was  Mr.  Black's  argument,  which  Mr. 
Ingersoll  answered.  Mr.  Lambert's  coming  in 
afterwards  with  the  perfectly  inconsiderable  objec- 
tion that  the  obstacles  to  the  rise  of  Christianity 
and  other  religions  were  not  alike  merits  no  at- 
tention. 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  121 

Mr.  Ingersoll  gave  some  of  those  met  and  over- 
come by  Mohammed,  and  also  gave  account  of 
the  "circumstances"  and  remarkable  success  of  all 
the  religions  he  mentioned.  He  said  Black's  argu- 
ment in  its  simplest  form  is,  all  that  succeeds  is 
inspired.  Besides  the  numbers  of  adherents  he 
mentioned  the  "circumstance"  that  Mohammed  was 
not  crucified;  he  was  a  conquerer. 

So  far  Mr.  Lambert  has  quoted  one  sentence 
only  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  on  this  point.  "It  will  not 
do  to  take  the  ground  that  the  rapid  rise  and 
spread  of  a  religion  demonstrates  its  divine  charac- 
ter." He  gives  Mr.  Black's  in  full,  altho  it  shows 
that  he  gives  the  rapid  rise  and  success  in  over- 
coming obstacles  alone  as  proof  of  the  t  verity  of 
Christianity.  Not  that  he  stops  with  this  argu- 
ment, but  he  is  being  answered  on  every  point  as 
he  advances  it,  and  this  alone  is  here  offered  as 
proof.  Without  once  stopping  to  ask  what  Mr. 
Black  means  by  verity;  without  substituting  other 
words  as  more  suitable  than  obstacle  or  chance; 
without  any  language  carping,  he  comments  thus: 
"This,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  is  your  adversary's  argument 
in  full,  and  the  reader  will  see  why  you  twist  it 
out  of  shape  before  you  attempt  to  answer  it,  and 
why  you  notice  one  part  and  ignore  the  other."  If 
the  Rev.  Patrick  Cronin  had  called  this  "untruth- 
ful in  statement,  illogical  in  reasoning,  dishonest 


122  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

in  inference,  vile  in  innuendo,  and  malevolent  in 
purpose,"  what  unprejudiced  person  who  had  read 
the  whole  debate  would  contradict  him? 

The  next  thing  he  takes  up  is  an  argument  of 
Ingersoll's  on  which  he  has  already  passed  judg- 
ment (that  the  Mohammedan  could  just  as  effect- 
ually use  Mr.  Black's  argument  against  an  Infidel; 
that  it  would  be  equally  applicable  to  all  the  re- 
ligions of  the  world),  and  says  the  Mohammedan, 
the  Brahmin,  or  the  priest  of  Isis  or  Osiris  could 
not ;  because,  said  Mr.  Lambert,  "the  rise  and  spread 
of  these  false  religions  have  nothing  in  common 
with  the  rise  and  spread  of  Christianity,  except, 
perhaps,  rapidity,  and  that  is  not  given  by  Mr. 
Black  as  a  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. You  evidently  set  about  answering  his 
argument  before  you  got  hold  of  its  full  force  and 
meaning." 

He  does  not  get  up  any  explanation  of  what  he 
wishes  us  to  consider  the  meaning  of  Mr.  Black's 
plain  words  td  be.  He  evidently  depends  on  the 
willingness  of  his  adherents  to  give  up  their  rea- 
soning faculties  entirely.  This  is  shown  by  his 
putting  Mr.  Black's  argument  before  them  and 
affect  that  it  is  not  as  they  see  it.  Perhaps  he  de- 
pends on  his  statement  that  Ingersoll  did  not  un- 
derstand to  leave  the  impression  that  they  could 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  123 

not  understand  and  must  not  doubt  the  word  of  a 
holy  man. 

Lambert.  "Your  efforts  to  make  the  argument 
fit  Buddhism,  Brahminism  and  Mohammedanism 
can  succeed  only  by  the  way  of  misrepresenting  it, 
which,  by  the  way,  you  have  not  hesitated  to  do." 

Comment.  This  "misrepresentation"  can  not  be 
proved,  and  Mr.  Lambert  contents  himself  with  the 
unsupported  assertion. 

FOUNDERS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

Perhaps  the  consideration  of  the  last  point  of  the 
argument  should  have  been  begun  by  a  longer  quo- 
tation from  Ingersoll  to  better  show  on  what  Mr. 
Lambert's  criticism  was  based,  but  I  must  not  go 
back  to  it.  I  will  give  his  argument  on  the  good, 
bad  and  mistaken  men  at  length. 

Ingersoll.  "The  old  argument  that  if  Christian- 
ity is  a  human  fabrication  its  authors  must  have 
been  either  good  men  or  bad  men,  takes  it  for 
granted  there  are  but  two  classes  of  persons — the 
good  and  the  bad.  There  is  at  least  one  other 
class — the  mistaken,  and  both  of  the  other  classes 
may  belong  to  this.  Thousands  of  most  excellent 
people  have  been  deceived,  and  the  history  of  the 
world  is  filled  with  instances  where  men  have 


124  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

honestly  supposed  that  they  had  received  communi- 
cations from  angels  and  gods. 

"In  thousands  of  instances  these  pretended  com- 
munications contained  the  purest  and  highest  thots, 
together  with  the  most  important  truths ;  yet  it  will 
not  do  to  say  that  these  accounts  are  true;  neither 
can  they  be  proved  by  saying  that  the  men  who 
claimed  to  be  inspired  were  good.  What  we  must 
say  is,  that,  being  good  men,  they  were  mistaken; 
and  it  is  the  charitable  mantle  of  a  mistake  that  1 
throw  over  Mr.  Black,  when  I  find  him  defend- 
ing the  institution  of  slavery.  He  seems  to  think 
it  utterly  incredible  that  any  'combination  of 
knaves,  however  base,  would  fraudulently  concoct 
a  religious  system  to  denounce  themselves,  and  to 
invoke  the  curse  of  God  upon  their  own  conduct.' 
How  did  religions  other  than  Christianity  and 
Judaism  arise  ?  Were  they  all  'concocted  by  a  com- 
bination of  knaves'?  The  religion  of  Gautama  is 
filled  with  most  tender  and  beautiful  thots,  with 
most  excellent  laws,  and  hundreds  of  sentences 
urging  mankind  to  deeds  of  love  and  self-denial. 
Was  Gautama  inspired? 

"Does  not  Mr.  Black  know  that  thousands  of 
people  charged  with  witchcraft  actually  confessed 
in  open  court  their  guilt?  Does  he  not  know  that 
they  admitted  that  they  had  spoken  face  to  face 
with  Satan,  and  had  sold  their  souls  for  gold  and 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  125 

power?  Does  he  not  know  that  these  admissions 
were  made  in  the  presence  and  expectation  of 
death  ?  Does  he  not  know  that  hundreds  of  judges, 
some  of  them  as  great  as  the  late  lamented  Gib- 
son, believed  in  the  existence  of  an  impossible 
crime  ?" 

Lambert.  "Then  you  must  belong  to  this  newly 
invented  class.  The  mistaken  must  be  either  good 
or  bad.  If  they  are  honestly  mistaken  they  are 
good,  as  far  as  the  subject  of  the  mistake  goes; 
if  they  are  dishonestly  mistaken  they  are  bad.  Don't 
you  see  we  must  come  back  to  the  two  classes  which 
'the  old  argument  takes  for  granted'?" 

Comment.  We  can  very  well  see  that  men  may 
believe  what  is  not  true;  in  that  case  they  might 
be  said  to  be  honestly  mistaken;  but  as  for  being 
dishonestly  mistaken  I  do  not  see  how  that  could 
be,  for  he  is  not  mistaken  unless  he  believes  a 
mistake,  and  how  could  there  be  anything  dishonest 
about  that  ?  Mr.  Lambert  does  not  bring  his  powers 
as  a  definer  to  bear  on  this  word  dishonestly,  as 
qualifying  mistaken,  tho  it  seems  really  perplex- 
ing. 

But  if  there  were  really  only  the  two  classes 
after  all,  as  he  says,  he  does  not  show  how  that 
would  prove  that  Christianity  is  not  a  human  fab- 
rication. 

Lambert.    "How  do  you  know  that  they  honest- 


126  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

ly  supposed"  [that  they  had  received  communica- 
tions from  angels  and  gods]  ?  "From  the  nature  of 
the  case  you  take  their  word  for  it,  so  it  is  their 
claim  that  must  be  examined.  History  is  full  of 
these  instances  and  is  full  of  instances  where  they 
were  rejected  for  want  of  sufficient  evidence." 
(About  good  men  tho  mistaken.)  "Then  you  know 
more  about  events  that  transpired  nearly  two  thou- 
sand years  ago  than  those  who  were  eye-witnesses 
of  them !  Whatever  else  a  modern  Infidel  may  lack, 
he  is  never  found  wanting  in  assurance.  It  is  his 
strong  point." 

Comment.  As  assurance  is  here  ascribed  to  the 
modern  Infidel  it  is  supposed  to  be  used  in  the 
sense  of  impudence.  In  the  same  sense  it  may 
be  more  correctly  applied  to  the  following  explana- 
tion, for  it  assumes  as  proved  the  things  which 
are  questioned  or  denied. 

He  says  apostles  in  these  comments.  It  is  com- 
mon to  say  apostles  and  their  successors,  meaning 
priests,  but  it  does  not  so  appear  in  this  place ;  this 
book  is  written  to  please  all  of  the  opponents  of 
Rationalism.  He  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that 
the  divine  mission  of  the  apostles  was  proved  by 
miracles,  which  reliable  witnesses  saw  with  their 
own  eyes  and  heard  with  their  own  ears.  If  argu- 
ment consisted  in  repeating  an  assertion  instead  of 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  127 

trying  to  give  reasons  for  sustaining  it,  what  a 
fine  debater  Mr.  Lambert  might  be! 

Lambert.  Because  there  are  fanatics  and  in- 
sane men  it  does  not  prove  that  sane  men  have  not 
had  commissions  from  God;  a  false  prophet  does 
not  prevent  the  possibility  of  a  true  one,  and  a 
counterfeit  note  does  not  destroy  the  value  of  a 
genuine  one ;  there  are  many  presidents  and  queens 
in  the  insane  asylums,  which  does  not  vitiate  the 
real  title.  "Does  the  delusion  of  a  Guiteau  des- 
troy the  claims  of  a  St.  Paul  or  Moses  to  a  divine 
commission?  Yet  this  is  the  assumption  and  drift 
of  your  argument  against  the  mission  of  the 
apostles !  Your  reasoning,  stated  in  form,  is  this : 

"Some  men  have  been  mistaken. 

"Therefore  the  founders  of  Christianity  were 
mistaken. 

"A  boy  who  could  reason  no  better  than  this 
ought  to  have  his  ears  boxed — if  boxes  large 
enough  could  be  found." 

Comment.  But  the  boy  who  reasons  thus  is  not 
Mr.  Ingersoll;  it  is  Mr.  Lambert.  It  is  quite  dif- 
ferent from  Mr.  Ingersoll's  reasoning.  Let  us  con- 
sider this  last  specimen  of  Mr.  Lambert's  reason- 
ing. The  believers  in  other  religions  are  not  in 
insane  asylums,  any  more  than  Christians;  their 
prophets  are  not  Guiteaus;  one  note  is  not  genu- 
ine because  another  is  counterfeit;  if  inspected,  it 


128  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

must  stand  the  test  or  be  rejected;  if  one  holds  a 
note  he  believes  to  be  good  he  should  be  willing  to 
submit  it  to  examination.  If  he  refuses  to  allow 
it  to  be  compared  with  other  notes  we  naturally 
suppose  he  is  not  sure  it  is  good,  but  wishes  it  to 
pass  anyhow. 

AUTHENTICITY      OF      THE      GOSPELS- 
MIRACLES. 

In  view  of  the  great  advance  in  knowledge  of 
the  Bible  it  hardly  seems  worth  while  to  take  time 
in  noting  the  pages  on  the  authenticity  of  the  Gos- 
pels. This  is  not  written  to  support  or  refute  any 
opinions  respecting  the  Gospels,  but  to  show  Mr. 
Lambert's  plan  of  campaign,  especially  his  treat- 
ment of  the  man  he  opposes. 

I  see  he  discusses  the  subject  as  if  such  a  thing 
as  higher  and  lower  criticism  had  never  been  heard 
of;  and  as  if  nothing  had  been  written  for  a  cen- 
tury or  two  by  those  who  have  made  a  study  of 
the  Bible  beyond  simply  quoting  texts.  He  writes 
as  if  his  authoritative  statements  had  never  been 
disputed;  indeed  he  says,  "There  can  be  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  whatever  that  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke 
and  John  wrote  the  gospels  attributed  to  them. 
Your  statement  to  the  contrary  has  not  a  particle 
of  evidence  to  rest  on."  "It  is  a  remarkable  fact 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  129 

that  the  authenticity  or  genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
was  never  brot  in  question  until  modern  times,  and 
then  only  by  a  few  Infidels;  and  even  these  confine 
themselves  to  bold,  naked,  groundless  statements." 

In  reference  to  Mr.  Ingersoll's  question  to  Mr. 
Black,  "How  is  this  known?"  (Mr.  Black  had  said 
nothing  had  ever  been  said  against  the  personal 
honesty  of  the  evangelists)  he  supposes  the  case  of 
some  one  of  Ingersoll's  friends  praising  his  per- 
sonal honesty,  when  some  one  asks,  "How  is  this 
known?"  He  goes  on  in  this  surprising  strain: 

Lambert.  "What  would  you  think  of  the  man 
who  would  reply  by  saying:  'How  is  this  known?' 
You  would  say  he  was  a  coward  and  a  contemptible 
sneak,  with  the  heart  of  an  assassin  without  his 
courage.  Is  not  your  honesty  and  virtue  to  be 
taken  for  granted  until  there  is  evidence  to  the 
contrary?  Is  not  that  man  a  criminal  who  at- 
tempts to  rob  you  of  your  character  by  hints  or 
winks  or  insinuating  questions  ?" 

Comment.  Do  you  think  anything  could  be  more 
astounding  than  this  description  of  his  own  man- 
ner of  defaming  a  character  that  he  must  know 
cannot  be  truthfully  assailed? — and  written  in  his 
own  style,  too !  But  the  wonder  of  it  is  surpassed 
by  the  next  sentence:  "Christianity  teaches  that  he 
is,  whatever  you  may  think,  with  your  code  of 
morals."  (!) 


130  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

After  quoting  from  some  Pagan  philosophers  as 
to  miracles,  he  says: 

Lambert.  "Now,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  do  not  all  these 
attempts  of  ancient  philosophers  to  belittle  and  ex- 
plain away  the  works  of  Jesus  Christ  prove  that 
these  works  were  real — that  they  were  known  and 
admitted?  These  men  knew  the  facts  better  than 
you  do,  and  instead  of  denying  them  as  you  do, 
they  tried  to  make  little  of  them  or  explain  them 
away." 

Comment.  The  citations  simply  show  that  the 
Pagans  claimed  for  their  great  men,  Aristeus, 
Pythagoras,  Appollonius,  greater  miracle-working 
powers  than  the  Christians  claimed  for  Jesus. 
Claims  for  workers  of  miracles  were  common  in 
those  days. 

He  takes  up  miracles  again  in  chapter  xxvii.  For 
the  sake  of  convenience  we  will  take  two  of  his 
texts  together,  and  his  comments  in  the  same  way. 

Ingersoll.  "How  it  is  known  that  it  was  claimed 
during  the  life  of  Christ  that  he  had  wrot  a 
miracle?  and  if  the  claim  was  made,  how  is  it  known 
that  it  was  not  denied?" 

Lambert.  "It  is  known  from  four  histories,  writ- 
ten by  four  well-known  historians :  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke  and  John.  These  histories  relate  that  the 
Jews  accused  Jesus  of  working  miracles  by  the 
power  of  Beelzebub,  and  Jesus  argued  with  them 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  13! 

to  prove  that  he  did  not."  "There  is  contemporary 
evidence  that  the  claim  was  made  and  admitted, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  it  was  ever 
denied.  On  the  contrary,  all  history  takes  these 
miracles  as  facts  that  have  been  passed  upon  as 
no  longer  legitimate  subjects  of  dispute. 

"As  you  have  adduced  no  ancient  historian  who 
denies  the  miracles  of  Christ,  it  must  be  taken  for 
granted  that  there  is  none.  If  there  was  a  single 
line  of  Jew  or  Pagan  denying  these  miracles,  you 
Infidels  would  hammer  on  it  as  persistently  as  the 
gentlemanly  waiter  hammers  on  the  Chinese  gong 
at  the  railroad  depot — twenty  minutes  for  refresh- 
ments. Failing  to  find  any  evidence  of  this  kind, 
what  do  you  do  ?  It  is  almost  incredible,  but  never- 
theless true;  you  actually  call  on  Christians  to 
prove  that  no  such  evidence  ever  existed!  You 
say  how  is  it  known  that  it  was  not  denied?  The 
devil  himself,  in  the  highest  flights  of  his  genius, 
never  surpassed  this  piece  of  supreme  imperti- 
nence." Further,  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  a  lawyer  and 
should  know  something  of  legal  logic  at  least; 
suppose  the  prosecution  in  the  star  route  case,  not 
finding  any  evidence  of  guilt,  should  say,  "How  do 
you  know  that  such  evidence  does  not  exist?" 

Comment.  But  Ingersoll  did  give  many  things 
to  prove  that  it  had  been  disbelieved  by  some  in 
the  time  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  pointed  out  the 


132  VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES. 

absence  of  any  proof  from  contemporary  history. 
He  showed  how  such  claims  might  be  made  at  the 
time  the  accounts  were  written  without  exciting  any 
comment,  when  but  few  people  could  write,  and  a 
manuscript  did  not,  in  any  modern  sense,  become 
public.  Besides  all  the  reasons  given,  it  seems  to 
me  enough  to  recall  the  fact  that  Eusebius  admitted 
that  he  kept  only  what  favored  the  church,  and 
suppressed  whatever  he  considered  against  it;  and, 
that  manuscripts  and  books  that  were  suspected  of 
being  against  the  faith,  or  of  doubtful  use  as  to 
the  benefit  of  the  church,  were  burned. 

Lambert  himself  says,  in  answer  to  "Did  the 
Jews  believe  that  Christ  was  clothed  with  miracu- 
lous power?"  "They  did.  And  they  believed  that 
their  prophets  were  also  clothed  with  miraculous 
poiver,  even  that  of  raising  the  dead  (italics  mine), 
and  this  was  the  reason  why  the  miracles  of  Christ 
did  not  convince  them  that  he  was  God,  or  the 
Messiah." 

Mr.  Lacy,  in  his  answer  to  the  "Notes,"  says  a 
good  deal  about  miracles  which  is  all  very  good,  but 
too  long  to  quote  in  full  here.  Mentioning  some  mir- 
acles, he  says  (page  136) :  "Should  we  accept  such 
statements  on  the  same  kind  and  amount  of  evi- 
dence as  we  do  the  reign  of  a  monarch,  the  history 
of  a  battle,  or  the  constitution  of  a  state?  No,  for 
there  is  an  antecedent  improbability  that  such 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  133 

things  ever  happened.  They  contradict  human 
experience.  They  imply  the  intervention  of  a  force 
unknown  either  to  science  or  philosophy.  Not  only 
so,  but  we  find  them  wedded  to  superstitions 
which  the  educated  world  has  long  ago  discarded." 
And  on  page  138:  "Before  we  can  credit  miracles 
we  must  insist  on  the  most  indubitable  proof — not 
such  as  may  suffice  in  a  question  of  a  common 
historical  or  everyday  fact,  but  such  as  disinterest- 
ed, educated  and  unbiased  minds  would  deem  suf- 
ficient." "But  were  the  accounts  of  miracles  given 
us  by  the  evangelists  strictly  contemporary  with 
the  events  they  record  ?  Or,  was  the  present  canon 
of  Scripture  accepted  and  the  books  therein  con- 
tained unquestioned  as  to  genuineness  and  inspira- 
tion in  the  infancy  of  the  church  ?  I  love  to  quote 
Catholic  authority;  it  is  often  so  charming  in  its 
explicitness.  Bishop  (afterwards  Archbishop)  Pur- 
cell,  in  his  debate  with  Campbell  (p.  130),  says: 
'You  did  not  see  the  miracles ;  the  books  that  record 
them  were  written  long  after  they  occurred,  and 
many  of  the  most  important  portions  of  this  very 
book  were  doubted  for  upwards  of  three  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  even  by  Luther  himself,  in  the 
enlightened  sixteenth  century!  His  [Campbell's] 
author,  Du  Pin,  says  there  were  abundance  of 
false  gospels,  false  epistles,  false  Acts,  in  the  early 
ages.  How  then,  according  to  his  [Campbell's] 


134  VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES. 

principles,  can  we  be  sure  of  the  authenticity  of  a 
single  book  of  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament,  being 
we  have  no  vouchers  for  the  truth  but  the  testimony 
of  men?  Here  are  chasms  to  be  bridged,  and 
links  in  the  chain  of  scriptural  testimony  to  be 
welded,  for  full  three  hundred  years,  aye,  sixteen 
hundred  years  before  the  various  books  of  the 
Scriptures  were  collected  together. 

"But  have  we  a  divine  sanction,  or  other  proof, 
to  show  that  Jesus  ever  authorized  anyone  to  write 
a  history  of  his  acts  and  sayings?  Let  Catholic 
authority  answer.  See  'The  Bible  Question,'  by  the 
great  and  good  Fenelon,  Fletcher's  notes,  p.  48: 
'Our  Divine  Redeemer  wrote  nothing;  he  only 
preached.  But  did  he  not  command  his  apostles 
to  write?  Of  this  or  of  such  command  there  is 
no  testimony  in  the  Bible.  So  that  thus  there  is  no 
proof,  in  the  sacred  book  itself,  that  any  written 
word  has  ever  been  appointed  by  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self to  be  the  rule  of  our  belief.'  Again,  p.  57: 
'The  Bible  neither  proclaims  its  own  inspiration, 
nor  can  the  sacred  article  be  proved  by  any  testi- 
mony of  the  Bible.'  In  the  same  work  (p.  57) 
are  quoted  approvingly  the  words  of  'the  excellent 
and  learned  Hooker,'  as  he  is  there  called:  'But  it 
is  not  the  word  of  God,  which  doeth  and  can  assure 
us  that  we  do  well  to  think  it  is  his  word'  "  (pages 
139-140). 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  135 

Comment.  Mr.  Purcell's  argument  was  in  refu- 
tation of  Protestants,  instead  of  trying  to  please 
them  and  get  their  aid  in  working  against  free  in- 
quiry; Mr.  Lambert  keeps  everything  offensive  to 
them  for  some  other  time.  Everything  is  sweet  and 
smooth  for  them  thruout  the  "Notes." 

Ing er soil.  "Is  it  not  strange  that  the  ones  he 
had  cured  were  not  his  disciples  ?" 

Lambert.  "It  would  be  strange  if  true ;  but  how 
do  you  happen  to  know  they  were  not?  Is  it  not 
strange  that  you  should  know  more  about  those 
who  were  cured  than  history  knows?  Where  did 
you  get  your  information?  How  do  you  know  that 
the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain  was  not  a  disciple 
of  Christ?  or  Lazarus,  or  the  deaf,  the  blind  and 
the  lame?  You  simply  know  nothing  whatever 
about  it.  And  yet  with  your  Infidel  brass  you  say 
they  were  not." 

Comment.  It  is  usual  to  speak  of  the  twelve  as 
the  disciples;  it  is  used  in  the  Bible  in  that  way; 
the  concordance  says  disciples  where  the  body  of 
the  book  says  twelve  disciples.  The  disciples  of 
John  are  mentioned,  and  if  the  word  simply  meant 
followers  in  general,  the  word  disciples  would  not 
be  used,  for  they  would  all  be  the  followers  of 
Jesus.  In  the  subject  index  references  are  given 
where  the  meaning  was  followers  in  general,  but 
the  word  disciples  was  not  used  in  the  text.  The 


136  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

word  is  often  used  now  to  mean  learners  or  fol- 
lowers, but  if  we  are  speaking  of  the  Gospels  the 
twelve  would  be  understood. 

Ingersoll.  "Can  we  believe,  upon  the  testimony 
of  those  about  whose  character  we  know  nothing, 
that  Lazarus  was  raised  from  the  dead?  What 
became  of  Lazarus?  We  never  hear  of  him  again. 
It  seems  to  me  he  would  have  been  an  object  of 
great  interest.  People  would  have  said,  'He  is  the 
man  who  was  once  dead.'  Thousands  would  have 
inquired  of  him  about  the  other  world ;  would  have 
asked  him  where  he  was  when  he  received  the  in- 
formation that  he  was  wanted  on  the  earth.  His 
experience  would  have  been  vastly  more  interest- 
ing than  everything  else  in  the  New  Testament. 
A  returned  traveler  from  the  shores  of  Eternity 
— one  who  had  walked  twice  thru  the  valley  of  the 
shadow — would  have  been  the  most  interesting  of 
human  beings.  When  he  came  to  die  again  people 
would  have  said :  'He  is  not  afraid ;  he  has  had  ex- 
perience; he  knows  what  death  is.'  But,  strangely 
enough,  this  Lazarus  fades  into  obscurity,  with  'the 
Wise  Men  of  the  East'  and  with  the  dead  who  came 
out  of  their  graves  the  night  of  the  crucifixion." 

Lambert.  (In  answer  to  "Can  we  believe  .  .  . 
that  Lazarus  was  raised  from  the  dead?") 
"Yes,  we  can  and  must  as  we  believe  all  facts  of 
history,"  enumerating  a  number  of  events ;  he  ends 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 


the  paragraph,  "The  principle  that  destroys  the 
credibility  of  the  Gospel  histories  destroys  at  the 
same  time  the  credibility  of  all  history  and  the  cred- 
ibility of  the  human  race." 

[The  rest  of  the  chapter  is  given  entire  for 
readers  should  be  acquainted  with  the  Lambertian 
quibbles.] 

IngersolL    What  became  of  Lazarus? 

Lambert.  It  is  probable  that  he  lived  an  honest 
life  and  did  not  spend  his  time  asking  foolish  ques- 
tions. 

IngersolL    We  never  hear  of  him  again. 

Lambert.  The  world  has  not  ceased  to  hear  of 
him  to  good  purpose  for  the  last  nineteen  hundred 
years. 

IngersolL  It  seems  to  me  he  would  have  been  an 
object  of  great  interest. 

Lambert.  So  it  has  proved,  altho  he  was  not 
the  first  man  who  was  raised  from  the  dead,  as 
we  learn  from  the  Old  Testament. 

Comment.  No  one  can  fail  to  understand  that 
the  disappearance  of  Lazarus  from  the  Bible  story 
is  meant;  the  most  stupid  could  never  imagine  that 
people  of  the  present  day  do  not  hear  of  him;  but 
the  dodging  expedient  of  the  priest  had  to  be  again 
brot  into  requisition. 


138  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

JOSEPHUS— INSPIRED  WITNESSES. 

Ingersoll.  "The  paragraph  in  Josephus  is  admit- 
ted to  be  an  interpolation." 

Lambert.  "Admitted  by  whom?  By  you  and 
Paine  and  Voltaire,  and  other  Infidels,  Tooley 
Street  tailors." 

Comment.  Wondering  who  were  the  Tooley 
Street  tailors,  looking  in  the  dictionary  of  noted 
names  of  fiction,  etc.,  and  not  finding  them,  the 
next  thing  in  trying  to  get  on  their  track  is  to 
look  up  printed  authorities  to  find  what  those  au- 
thorities say  about  others  who  admit  the  interpola- 
tion. Those  accessible  to  me  and  references  to 
others  show  many  names  that  do  not  seem  to  point 
to  any  people  who  could  be  compared  to  Tooley 
Street  tailors,  whatever  they  may  be.  Christian 
writers  see  the  improbability  if  not  the  impossi- 
bility of  the  truth  of  the  passage.  But  I  see  noth- 
ing suggestive  of  any  kind  of  tailors. 

Mr.  Lambert.  "Eusebius  was  the  first  to  quote 
this  passage,  and  it  is  morally  impossible  that  he 
could  have  forged  it  without  being  detected." 

Comment.  Besides  his  being  the  first  to  use  it, 
his  admission  of  unpardonable  faults  as  a  historian 
would  direct  suspicion  to  him  as  the  originator. 

Ingersoll.  "Are  the  statements  of  the  inspired 
witnesses  alike  on  this  point?"  [The  ascension  of 
Jesus.] 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  139 

Lambert.  "Yes.  But  your  opponent  does  not  say 
inspired  witnesses.  Christians  do  not  teach  that  the 
apostles  were  inspired  witnesses  of  the  events  they 
narrate.  It  does  not  require  inspiration  to  witness 
a  fact.  This  is  an  illustration  of  your  art  in  chang- 
ing words  to  introduce  into  the  question  false 
ideas.  The  apostles  witnessed  the  events  in  the 
life  of  Christ,  as  others  witnessed  them.  But  un- 
like others,  they  were  inspired  to  give  a  narration 
of  the  events  they  witnessed.  You  are  fond  of 
words  of  double  meaning.  They  give  room  for 
sophistry.  A  witness  may  mean  one  who  has  seen 
an  event  take  place,  or  it  may  mean  one  who  gives 
testimony  of  what  he  has  seen.  The  evangelists 
were  the  inspired  narrators  of  what  they  witnessed. 
I  mention  this  merely  to  show  how  carefully  you 
have  to  be  watched.  The  statements,  then,  of  the 
inspired  witnesses,  are  alike  on  the  ascension." 

Comment.  Witnesses  testify  to  what  they  know ; 
these  witnesses  testified  in  the  books  called  the 
gospels;  as  the  gospels  are  spoken  of  as  inspired 
the  writers  would  be  called  inspired  witnesses — 
inspired  testifiers.  As  Mr.  Black  spoke  of  these 
witnesses  as  inspired  and  Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  an- 
swer used  the  words  in  the  same  way,  I  do  not 
see  how  Mr.  Lambert  could  properly  charge  him 
with  changing  words  to  introduce  false  ideas.  If  he 
sees  any  false  ideas  let  him  point  them  out.  Let 


140  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

him  point  out  the  double  meaning  and  the  sophis- 
try. This  wordy  critic  seems  to  find  some  bad 
meaning  suggested,  but  not  expressed.  If  there  is 
really  something  bad  in  his  mind  let  him  speak 
out  and  show,  if  he  can,  that  it  is  not  indigenous. 
What  is  the  use  of  his  boasting  that  he  is  watch- 
ing, if  he  brings  nothing  to  light?  He  abounds  in 
hints  that  he  has  seen  something.  Why  does  he  not 
say  what?  He  stands  high  as  a  caviller,  and  pre- 
eminent in  unmeaning  innuendo. 

Ingcrsoll.  "Matthew  says  nothing  on  the  sub- 
ject" [the  ascension  of  Jesus],  "  .  .  .To  this  won- 
der of  wonders  Mark  devotes  one  verse:  'So  then, 
after  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  them,  he  was  re- 
ceived up  into  heaven  and  sat  at  the  right  hand 
of  God.'  Can  we  believe  that  this  verse  was  writ- 
ten by  one  who  witnessed  the  ascension  of  Jesus 
Christ;  by  one  who  watched  his  Master  slowly  ris- 
ing thru  the  air  till  distance  reft  him  from  his  tear- 
ful sight?  Luke,  another  of  the  witnesses,  says: 
'And  it  came  to  pass,  while  he  blessed  them,  he  was 
parted  from  them,  and  was  carried  up  to  heaven.' 
John  corroborates  Matthew  by  saying  nothing  on 
the  subject.  Now  we  find  that  the  last  chapter  of 
Mark,  after  the  eighth  verse,  is  an  interpolation, 
so  that  Mark  really  says  nothing  about  the  occur- 
rence. Either  the  ascension  of  Christ  must  be 
given  up,  or  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  witnesses 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  14! 

do  not  agree,  and  that  three  of  them  never  heard  of 
that  most  stupendous  event." 

Lambert,  "Your  opponent  said  the  statements 
made  by  the  evangelists  were  alike,  etc.  He  said 
nothing  of  statements  not  made  by  this  or  that 
evangelist.  Matthew's  history  ends  with  the  resur- 
rection and  commission  of  the  apostles,  and  does 
not  extend  to  the  ascension." 

Comment.  Each  of  the  Gospels  is  looked  upon 
as  a  biography — a  story,  or  history  of  Jesus.  Their 
stories  may  be  called  statements.  Among  Webster's 
definitions  of  the  word  appears:  "a  narrative";  "a 
recital" ;  and  of  narrative :  "the  recital  of  a  story, 
or  a  continued  account  of  the  particulars  of  an 
event  or  transaction ;  story."  Of  recital  definitions 
we  have,  "a  telling  of  the  particulars  of  anything, 
as  of  a  law,  or  an  adventure,  or  of  a  series  of 
events;  narration."  If  an  important  circumstance 
is  left  out  of  a  gospel,  the  natural  inference  is  that 
the  author  never  heard  of  it,  or  disbelieved  it. 
When  Luke  tells  of  the  ascension  and  Matthew 
says  nothing  about  it,  their  statements  do  not  agree. 

Of  the  one  verse  in  Mark  concerning  it,  Mr. 
Lambert  writes :  "Is  not  one  verse  sufficient  to  state 
an  important  fact?  You,  no  doubt,  would  have 
devoted  many  words  to  this  fact,  but  that  was  not 
Mark's  style — he  was  not  a  romancer.  The  differ- 
ence between  him  and  you  is  this :  He  was  inspired 


142  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

to  write  the  truth,  while  you  are  not — at  least  your 
writings  give  no  evidence  of  it." 

Comment.  Here  is  another  accusation  of  untruth 
without  any  excuse  for  dragging  it  in. 

He  quotes  Luke's  statement  and  says:  "Well, 
is  not  this  statement  and  that  of  Mark  alike?" 
taking  no  notice  in  this  place  of  the  reason  why 
Mark  did  not  count.  He  seems  to  want  the  state- 
ment that  they  are  alike  to  stand  prominent.  Fur- 
ther along  he  says  we  do  not  find  it  an  interpola- 
tion, "and  when  you  say  you  have  found  it,  you 
simply  take  a  dishonest  advantage  of  your  igno- 
rant admirers.  That  they  deserve  no  better  treat- 
ment at  your  hands  is  no  excuse  for  you."  He  says 
the  words  are  found  in  almost  all  the  ancient 
manuscripts;  the  most  ancient  of  the  fathers  ad- 
mit them;  all  the  oldest  Latin,  Syriac  and  Arabic 
copies  have  them.  They  must,  therefore,  be  con- 
sidered genuine  until  we  have  some  better  reason 
for  rejecting  them  than  your  "we  find." 

I  notice  that  he  says  they  "are  found  in  almost 
all  of  the  ancient  manuscripts."  He  does  not  say 
anything  about  the  most  ancient,  which  sustains  the 
charge  of  interpolation.  The  Revised  Version  has 
this  on  the  margin:  "The  two  oldest  Greek  manu- 
scripts, and  some  other  authorities,  omit  from  verse 
9  to  the  end.  Some  other  authorities  have  a  dif- 
ferent ending  to  the  Gospel." 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  143 

Lambert.  "The  ascension  of  Christ  will  not  be 
given  up.  It  should  never  have  been  believed  if 
it  could  be  overthrown  by  the  silly  trash  which  you 
advance  as  arguments.  The  evidence  of  the  three 
evangelists  whom  I  have  quoted  do  agree,  and  no 
man  of  sense  and  unbiased  judgment  will  pretend 
to  the  contrary  .  .  .  There  are  only  four  evangel- 
ists. Three  of  them  speak  of  the  ascension  .  .  . 
now  where  do  you  find  your  other  three  who  never 
heard  of  it?  But  you  contradict  yourself.  Ac- 
cording to  your  reasoning  only  one  of  the  evangel- 
ists mentions  the  ascension,  the  rest  are  silent  or 
never  heard  of  the  stupendous  event.  Now  if  only 
one  of  four  witnesses  speaks,  how  can  they  contra- 
dict each  other?  There  is  such  a  thing  as  being 
too  smart." 

Comment.  If  he  had  shown  that  silly  trash  had 
been  advanced  as  argument  there  would  have  been 
no  necessity  for  this  invective,  and  giving  evidence 
of  a  thing  is  much  more  effective  with  thinking 
people  than  the  use  of  opprobrious  epithets  so 
habitual  with  this  writer.  Anyone  reading  what 
Ingersoll  wrote  about  it  finds  that  he  says  Mat- 
thew and  John  say  nothing  on  the  subject;  that  the 
last  chapter  of  Mark,  where  it  was  mentioned,  has 
been  found  to  be  interpolated,  and  Luke  is  the 
only  one  mentioning  it.  The  agreement  of  the 
Gospels  on  this  subject  stands  disproved, 


144  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

The  author  of  the  "Notes"  quotes  John  iii,  13. 
This  is  not  given  in  the  subject  index  of  the  Ox- 
ford Sunday  School  Edition  in  "Ascension  of 
Christ."  It  is  in  the  concordance  "No  man  hath 
ascended."  I  do  not  find  it  in  Young's  Concor- 
dance as  "The  Ascension."  It  is,  "And  no  man 
hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came 
down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which  is 
in  heaven."  As  Jesus  says  that  to  Nicodemus  in 
the  first  part  of  his  public  life,  or  his  ministry, 
I  do  not  see  how  that  could  prove  what  is  called 
the  ascension.  Had  no  one  else  ascended?  "And 
Elijah  went  up  by  a  whirlwind  into  heaven"  (2 
Kings  ii,  n). 

Ingersoll.  "Again,  if  anything  could  have  left  its 
form  and  pressure  on  the  brain,  it  must  have  been 
the  last  words  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  last  words, 
according  to  Matthew,  are:  'Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  al- 
ways, even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  The  last 
words,  according  to  the  inspired  witness  known 
as  Mark,  are:  'And  these  signs  shall  follow  them 
that  believe ;  in  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils ; 
they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues;  they  shall  take 
up  serpents;  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing, 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  145 

it  shall  not  hurt  them;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the 
sick  and  they  shall  recover.'  Luke  tells  us  that 
the  last  words  uttered  by  Christ,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  blessing,  were :  'And  behold,  I  send  forth 
the  promise  of  my  father  upon  you;  but  tarry  ye 
in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high.'  The  last  words,  according  to 
John,  were:  Teter,  seeing  Him,  saith  to  Jesus, 
Lord,  and  what  shall  this  man  do?  Jesus  saith 
unto  him,  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what 
is  that  to  thee?  Follow  thou  me.' 

"An  account  of  the  ascension  is  also  given  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  and  the  last  words  of  Christ, 
according  to  that  inspired  witness,  are:  'But  ye 
shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
come  upon  you ;  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me, 
both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria, 
and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth.'  In  this 
account  of  the  ascension  we  find  that  two  men 
stood  by  the  disciples,  in  white  apparel,  and  asked 
them,  'Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  stand  you  gazing 
up  into  heaven?  This  same  Jesus,  which  is  taken 
up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like 
manner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven.'  Mat- 
thew says  nothing  of  the  two  men.  Mark  never 
saw  them.  Luke  may  have  forgotten  them  when 
writing  his  Gospel,  and  John  may  have  regarded 
them  as  optical  illusions." 


146  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Lambert.  "Now  these  are  not  the  last  words  of 
Christ  according  to  Matthew,  and  Matthew  does 
not  say  they  were  the  last  words.  Why  do  you  in- 
terpolate into  the  gospel  of  Matthew  a  statement 
he  never  made?  Is  it  thru  stupidity,  or  ignorance, 
or  a  desire  to  deceive?  You  must  excuse  me,  but 
I  must  talk  according  to  the  facts;  your  statement 
is  absolutely  false.  Matthew  does  not  pretend  to 
give  the  last  words  of  Christ.  The  words,  'Go  ye/ 
etc.,  are  simply  the  last  words  reported  by  Mat- 
thew." 

"What  I  have  said  above  in  reference  to  the 
last  words  of  Matthew  are  equally  applicable  here. 
St.  Mark  does  not  report  these  words  as  the  last 
utterance  of  Christ.  They  are  simply  the  last 
words  he  (Mark)  reports.  You  can  be  excused 
from  bad  faith  here  only  at  the  expense  of  your 
intelligence." 

"Luke  tells  us  nothing  of  the  kind;  and  it  is 
hard  to  believe  that  you  did  not  know  you  were 
misrepresenting  Luke  when  you  said  so.  You  must 
have  an  unlimited  faith  in  the  credulity  of  this 
age,  or  the  bottomless  ignorance  of  the  class  to 
which  you  appeal,  when  you  make  such  a  statement. 
It  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  great  and  learned 
Christian  theologians  do  not  care  to  meet  you. 
The  reason  of  their  silence  is  evident  to  men  of 
sense.  It  is  not  their  duty  or  business  to  turn  aside 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  147 

to  meet  every  blatant  blasphemer  who  wags  his 
tongue  against  Christianity  for  dollars,  under  the 
pretense  of  being  a  philosopher.  They  decline  to 
talk  with  you  about  theology  on  the  same  principle 
that  a  Taney,  a  Marshall,  or  an  Evarts  would  de- 
cline to  discuss  Common  Law  or  the  Code  Jus- 
tinian with  a  mountebank." 

"It  is  needless  to  tell  the  reader,  after  what  I 
have  said  in  reference  to  your  falsification  of  the 
other  evangelists,  that  your  assertion  as  to  what 
St.  John  says  is  utterly  false  and  without  a  shadow 
of  foundation.  You  are  squandering  your  repu- 
tation too  cheaply." 

"This"  (in  the  Acts)  "is  equally  as  false  as  what 
you  have  said  about  the  gospels." 

Comment.  Was  there  ever  such  a  collection  of 
foolish  denials,  framed  in  such  abusive  language? 
Insults  are  never  defensible,  and  the  denials  are 
based  on  a  pretense.  I  have  copied  all  there  is  in 
the  "Notes"  about  the  last  words  of  Jesus.  If  he  had 
been  desirous  of  stating  his  argument  without  any 
personalities  he  could  have  given  the  whole  of  it 
in  one  sentence,  thus:  The  last  words  of  Jesus 
given  in  the  Bible  are  not  his  last  words,  but  the 
last  words  that  were  reported. 

But,  in  a  circumstantial  account  of  the  life  and 
death  of  the  subject  of  any  written  work  the  last 
words  reported  are,  of  course,  the  last  words. 


148  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Ingersoll.  "Luke  testifies  that  Christ  ascended 
on  the  very  day  of  his  resurrection." 

Lambert.  "Luke  nowhere  testifies  that  Christ 
ascended  on  the  very  day  of  his  resurrection.  On 
the  contrary,  he  tells  us  in  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
that  'He  (Christ)  showed  himself  alive  after  his 
passion,  by  many  proofs,  for  forty  days  appearing 
to  them  and  speaking  of  the  kingdom  of  God' 
(1-3).  Here  Luke  testifies  explicitly  as  to  the  time 
of  the  ascension,  whereas  in  his  Gospel  he  signifies 
no  time."  Quoting  Ingersoll,  "These  depositions 
do  not  agree,"  he  says:  "It  is  your  travesty  of 
them  that  does  not  agree." 

Comment.  I  will  give  Ingersoll's  whole  para- 
graph, and  then  show  that  he  was  right  about  Luke. 

Ingersoll.  "Luke  testifies  that  Christ  ascended 
on  the  very  day  of  his  resurrection.  John  deposes 
that  eight  days  after  the  resurrection  Christ  ap- 
peared to  the  disciples  and  convinced  Thomas.  In 
the  Acts  we  are  told  that  Christ  remained  on  earth 
for  forty  days  after  his  resurrection.  These  'dep- 
ositions' do  not  agree.  Neither  do  Matthew  and 
Luke  agree  in  their  histories  of  the  infancy  of 
Christ.  It  is  impossible  for  both  to  be  true.  One  of 
these  'witnesses'  must  have  been  mistaken." 

Comment.  Mr.  Lambert  says  that  in  his  gospel 
Luke  specifies  no  time  of  the  ascension.  As  far 
as  I  have  ever  found  out,  Christians  agree  that 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  149 

Jesus  rose  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  That  day 
the  women  found  his  body  was  missing  and  re- 
ported. Peter  went  to  the  sepulchre;  two  of  them 
went  that  same  day,  etc.,  met  Jesus,  talked  with 
him,  saw  him  vanish  out  of  sight,  and  that  same 
hour  returned  to  Jerusalem,  told  what  they  had 
seen  when  Jesus  stood  in  the  midst  of  them  .  .  . 
blessed  them,  was  parted  from  them  and  carried 
up  to  heaven. 

THE  GENEALOGIES  OF  JESUS. 

Ingersoll.  "Two  of  the  witnesses,  Matthew  and 
Luke,  give  the  genealogy  of  Christ.  Matthew  says 
that  there  were  forty-two  generations  from  Abra- 
ham to  Christ.  Luke  insists  that  there  were  forty- 
two  from  Christ  to  David,  while  Matthew  gives 
the  number  as  twenty-eight.  It  may  be  said  that 
this  is  an  old  objection.  An  objection  remains 
young  until  it  has  been  answered.  Is  it  not  won- 
derful that  Luke  and  Matthew  do  not  agree  on  a 
single  name  of  Christ's  ancestors  for  thirty-seven 
generations  ?" 

Comment.  Mr.  Lambert's  argument  is  here 
given  in  full  without  interrupting  it  with  his  two 
quotations  of  the  above  argument  of  IngersolL 
Please  do  not  fail  to  read  the  whole  of  it. 

Lambert.    "It  is  indeed  an  old  objection,  and  ia 


150  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

this  it  is  like  all  the  objections  you  have  made. 
They  are  all,  thus  far,  merely  the  old,  oft-repeated 
and  oft-answered  ones  varnished  and  revamped 
into  modern  parlance.  They  lose  some  of  their 
force  in  the  translation,  but  what  they  lose  that  way 
is  made  up  by  flippancy  and  verbal  flummery. 

"Your  objection  is  that  Matthew  and  Luke  con- 
tradict each  other  in  the  number  of  generations. 
Generation  has  two  meanings.  It  means  first,  the 
actual  number  of  persons  in  direct  line,  as  father, 
son,  grandson,  great-grandson,  etc.  Generation  in 
this  sense  gives  us  no  measure  of  time,  since  every 
individual  in  the  above  series  may  have  lived  from 
twenty  to  twenty-five  hundred  years  or  more.  This 
kind  of  generation  is  therefore  of  no  use  whatever 
in  calculating  time  or  historical  epochs.  It  is  too 
indefinite.  It  is,  however,  of  use  to  prove  legiti- 
macy, and  the  right  of  inheritance.  It  is  genera- 
tion in  this  sense  that  St.  Luke  traces,  because  it  is 
his  purpose  to  show  that  Christ  was  of  the  direct 
line  of  the  royal  family,  and  that  he  was  the  per- 
son who,  if  royalty  had  continued  in  the  family  of 
David,  would  have  legally  inherited  the  throne. 
Luke  was  dealing  with  the  question  in  reference  to 
legitimacy  and  inheritance,  and  with  no  reference 
to  historical  times  or  epochs. 

"The  second  meaning  of  generation  has  reference 
to  time  and  denotes  the  average  life  of  man,  which 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  151 

at  present  is  supposed  to  be  thirty-three  years.  As 
men  lived  longer  in  the  early  history  of  the  race 
than  now,  the  average  life  or  generation  was  much 
longer.  Now,  Matthew  uses  the  word  generation 
in  reference  to  time — to  the  average  duration  of 
life  when  the  prophecies  concerning  the  coming  of 
Christ  were  written — to  prove  that  those  prophe- 
cies were  verified.  His  purpose  was  to  show  two 
things;  first,  that  the  time  announced  by  the 
prophets  had  been  completed  at  the  advent  of 
Christ,  and  second,  to  show  that  Christ  was  of  the 
royal  line  of  David.  Generations  of  time,  then,  in 
the  sense  used  by  Matthew,  might  contain  two, 
three,  or  four  generations  of  individuals  in  the 
sense  of  Luke.  It  follows  then,  that  as  these  two 
evangelists  were  writing  about  two  different  things 
they  did  not  contradict  each  other.  Luke  spoke 
of  individual  life,  Matthew  of  average  life. 

"It  is  wonderful"  (that  Luke  and  Matthew  do 
not  agree  on  a  single  name  of  Christ's  ancestors 
for  thirty-seven  generations^  "only  to  those  who 
are  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  Matthew  gives  the 
ancestors  of  Joseph,  while  Luke  gives  the  an- 
cestors of  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God.  Are  your  an- 
cestors on  your  mother's  side  all  Ingersolls?  Must 
your  maternal  and  paternal  ancestors  necessarily 
have  the  same  name  ?  A  careful  study  of  Christian 


152  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

writers  would  save  you  a  good  deal  of  ignorant 
blundering." 

Comment.  He  says  these  are  old  objections  and 
oft  answered,  but  does  not  say  where  the  answers 
are  to  be  found,  so  I  looked  it  up  in  Paige's  Com- 
mentaries. This  author,  unlike  the  author  of  the 
"Notes,"  thinks  the  objection  new,  and  therefore 
not  entitled  to  weight.  He  says  he  recognizes  the  dif- 
ficulty presented  by  the  difference  of  the  two  gene- 
alogies, and  thinks  the  most  probable  solution  is 
that  Matthew  gave  the  genealogy  of  Joseph,  the 
reputed  father  of  Jesus,  while  Luke  gives  that  of 
Mary.  "The  descent  of  Jesus  from  David  and 
Abraham  was  the  great  fact  to  be  proved,  and  this 
could  not  be  satisfactorily  done  without  distinctly 
showing  that  such  was  the  descent  of  Mary;  be- 
cause both  Matthew  and  Luke  distinctly  assert 
that  Joseph  was  not  the  actual  father  of  Jesus.  .  .  . 
Whether  or  not  this  be  the  true  solution  of  the  dif- 
ficulty, we  need  not  doubt  the  substantial  accuracy 
of  either  genealogy."  Going  on,  he  quotes  some 
Barnes,  who  "very  sensibly  observes"  that  early  ob- 
jectors to  Christianity  did  not  see  anything  wrong 
about  the  two  accounts  being  so  different.  He 
quotes  Whitby,  who  tells  what  each  of  the  four- 
teen generations  (see  Matt,  i,  17)  did,  and  adds, 
"to  make  the  full  number  of  fourteen  in  each 
class  David  and  Josiah  must  be  counted  twice — 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  153 

each  ending  one  class  and  commencing  the  next." 
I  see  by  Mr.  Paige's  introductions  to  the  commen- 
taries on  Matthew  and  Luke  that  both  are  authen- 
tic and  inspired.  The  date  of  publication  is  1844. 

Here  end  the  quotations  from  the  Commentary. 

As  both  of  them  are  Joseph's  genealogies,  any 
argument  on  their  reconciliation  with  truth  must 
be  on  the  ground  that  the  story  of  the  virgin  birth 
of  Jesus,  as  given  by  both  authors,  is  not  true.  One 
is  traced  back  from  Joseph  and  one  down  to 
Joseph,  and  both  thru  the  direct  male  line,  step 
by  step,  so  Mary  could  not  possibly  be  brot  in. 
And  there  could  be  no  difference  in  the  number  of 
ancestors  in  the  direct  male  line,  nor  in  their  names. 
According  to  Matthew  Joseph's  father  was  Jacob, 
his  grandfather  was  Matthan,  his  great-grandfather 
Eleazar.  According  to  Luke  Joseph's  father  was 
Heli,  his  grandfather  Matthat,  his<  great-grand- 
father Melchi. 

Average  and  individual  life  can  have  nothing  to 
do  with  it;  both  accounts  are  too  plain.  Besides 
Mr.  Lambert  knocks  out  that  explanation  with  his 
other  one — that  Luke  gives  Mary's  genealogy — 
tho  the  Bible  says  it  is  Joseph's. 

As  the  descent  in  both  is  thru  the  male  line  the 
"ignorant  blundering"  charged  and  the  remark 
about  Ingersoll's  ancestors  on  his  mother's  side 
being  all  Ingersolls  seem  very  extraordinary — I  do 
not  mean  in  the  way  of  literary  merit  or  courtesy. 


154  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

DOCTRINES     OF     THE     GOSPELS— LAST 
WORDS  ON  THE  CROSS. 

Without  quoting  any  of  the  argument,  or  state- 
ment of  the  doctrines  of  the  four  writers  of  the 
gospels,  Mr.  Lambert  takes  the  introductory  and 
the  closing  sentences  of  Ingersoll's  presen- 
tation for  his  texts,  and  goes  on  in  his 
usual  virulent  style,  charging  untruthfulness  three 
times  in  a  little  more  than  half  a  page.  On  the 
next  half  page  asks  Ingersoll  if  he  expects  a  Chris- 
tian scholar  to  stoop  to  meet  him;  contradicts  with 
his  usual  arrogance;  says  Ingersoll's  efforts  are  a 
miserable  failure,  and  his  case  in  a  very  bad  way 
indeed.  There  is  no  argument  advanced  till  near 
the  bottom  of  the  page  when  he  denies  that  the 
last  words  reported  in  Matthew  of  the  last  words 
of  Jesus  when  he  was  crucified  were  his  last  words, 
and  repeats  the  same  assertion  in  separate  para- 
graphs, in  reference  to  all  the  other  Gospels. 

He  charges  ignorant  and  unprincipled  misrep- 
resentation Of  the  Gospels ;  wishes  to  know  by  what 
code  of  morals,  if  any,  Ingersoll  is  governed; 
"Gautama,  Confucius,  or  Koang-Foo-Tzee,  Zoro- 
aster, Lao-Tzsee,  Hermes,  Trismegistus,  Moses  and 
Mohammed  all  forbid  lying  in  their  codes.  What 
code  do  you  follow,  anyhow  ?" 

He  seems  to  depend  on  this  impressive  array  of 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  155 

names  to  call  attention  from  the  lack  of  proof  of 
what  he  stigmatizes  as  lying.  He  does  not  say  the 
words  given  are  not  as  they  are  in  the  Bible,  of 
course.  He  gives  no  reason  for  thinking  the  last 
words  reported  were  not  the  last  words.  In  two 
cases  they  could  not  fail  to  be  the  last.  John  has 
the  account  this  way:  "He  said,  It  is  finished,  and 
he  bowed  his  head  and  gave  up  the  ghost."  In 
Luke  the  words  are:  "...  he  said,  Father,  into 
thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit:  and  having  said 
this,  he  gave  up  the  ghost."  If  either  of  these  ac- 
counts had  been  given  without  the  other  accounts, 
would  there  ever  have  been  any  question  about  the 
last  words? 

Matthew  and  Mark  both  say  there  was  dark- 
ness from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth  hour,  and  at  the 
ninth  hour  (Mark),  about  the  ninth  hour  (Mat- 
thew), Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  Then  one  ac- 
count has  two,  and  the  other  three  verses  of  what 
others  said  and  did,  and  "Jesus,  when  he  had  cried 
again  with  a  loud  voice  yielded  up  the  ghost"  (Mat- 
thew), "and  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice  and  gave 
up  the  ghost"  (Mark). 

Ingersoll.  "Luke  says  that  Christ  said  of  his 
murderers:  'Father,  forgive  them;  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do.'  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  do 
not  record  these  touching  words.  John  says  that 


156  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Christ,  on  the  day  of  his  resurrection,  said  to  his 
disciples :  'Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  re- 
mitted unto  them ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained.' 

"The  other  disciples  do  not  record  this  mon- 
strous passage.  They  did  not  hear  the  abdication 
of  God.  They  were  not  present  when  Christ 
placed  in  their  hands  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell, 
and  put  a  world  beneath  the  feet  of  priests." 

Lambert.  "The  other  disciples  do  not  record  this 
passage,  eh?  Matthew  was  an  apostle  and  a  dis- 
ciple, was  he  not?  Well,  Matthew  says:  Verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall 
loose  upon  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven  (xxvii, 
18).  And  again:  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  etc.  (xvi, 

19). 

"This  is  enough  to  prove  you  ignorant  or  dis- 
honest, and  you  may  take  your  choice  of  position. 
You  should  not  forget  that  you  are  not  only  sacri- 
ficing your  own  dignity  and  veracity,  but  are  sac- 
rificing and  humbling  in  the  dust,  so  far  as  one 
man  can  do  it,  the  dignity  of  our  common  man- 
hood, by  your  false,  foolish,  and  reckless  state- 
ments." " 

Comment.    The  xxvii,  18,  must  be  a  misprint,  for 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  157 

xviii,  18;  that  and  xvi,  19  are  as  given  by  Mr. 
Lambert.  He  seems  to  be  satisfied  that  they  are 
the  same  as  the  text  in  John ;  he  is  remarkably  easy 
to  satisfy  this  time,  and  does  not  find  these  texts 
at  all  indefinite.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  no  one 
would  think  that  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth, 
etc.,  meant  the  same  as  Whose  soever  sins  ye  shall 
remit,  etc.,  unless  his  mind  had  been  fixed  on  the 
idea  that  Matthew  meant  the  same  as  John  before 
he  read  it.  I  feel  sure  if  I  had  read  Matthew  and 
not  John  I  should  not  have  thot  forgiveness  of 
sins  was  meant.  But  the  text  in  John  says  in  plain 
words  that  the  priests  may  forgive  sins.  Matthew 
xviii,  r8,  does  not  seem  plain  as  xviii,  19,  does.  It 
is,  "Again  I  say  unto  you,  that  if  two  of  you  shall 
agree  on  earth,  as  touching  anything  that  they  shall 
ask,  it  shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  father  which 
is  in  heaven."  That  is  easy.  Perhaps  too  many 
prayed  that  Garfield  might  live ;  it  should  have  been 
arranged  for  two.  Excuse  digression. 

Lambert.  "When  you  say,  'They  were  not  pres- 
ent when  he  placed  in  their  hands  the  keys/  etc., 
you  intended  to  perpetrate  one  of  those  side-split- 
ting jokes  which  are  wont  to  set  your  audience  in 
a  roar.  The  idea  of  their  not  being  present  when 
he  placed  in  their  hands  the  keys,  is  droll,  when  we 
come  to  think  of  it.  But  the  subject  is  very  seri- 
ous, and  the  joke  is  out  of  place.  When  we  want 


158  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

to  enjoy  such  things  we  go  to  the  circus  or  to  the 
minstrels.  But  let  us  return.  You  say  that  that 
commission  which  Christ  gave  to  the  apostles  to 
pardon  sinners  'puts  a  world  beneath  the  feet  of 
priests.'  Does  the  power  of  pardoning  criminals, 
which  is  reposed  in  the  hands  of  the  governor,  place 
the  people  of  this  State  at  his  feet?  Reflect  on  this 
for  a  moment,  and  you  will  learn  that  there  is 
more  sound  than  sense  in  the  observation." 

Comment.  This  shows  that  the  necessity  for  say- 
ing something  must  have  been  felt  to  be  very  ur- 
gent indeed.  Could  anyone  be  led  to  believe  that 
Ingersoll  used  the  word  hands  ignorantly? — had 
not  sufficient  command  of  language  to  give  correct- 
ly the  idea  he  intended?  For,  of  course,  no  one 
with  his  intelligence  awake  could  believe  that  he 
would  try  to  make  even  a  good  joke  (and  this  is 
a  very  poor  one  indeed),  and  spoil  the  effect  of  a 
strong  argument  eloquently  expressed.  But  Mr.  In- 
gersoll's  strikingly  effective  sentence  stands.  A 
weak,  evasive  pretense  of  an  answer  can  have  no 
effect  on  it.  If  it  were  worth  while  to  describe  the 
author  of  this  specimen  of  inanity  put  forth  as  an 
answer  to  Ingersoll,  we  might  turn  back  a  few 
pages  and  copy  some  of  the  epithets  he  tries  to 
make  readers  believe  are  descriptive  of  the  sub- 
ject of  his  diatribe. 

The  word  hands  was  quite  correct  as  used  by 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  159 

Ingersoll.  Common  usage  justifies  it;  some  of 
Webster's  definitions  are:  possession,  ownership, 
control. 

Priests,  as  a  means  of  helping  to  keep  the  world 
beneath  their  feet,  try  to  prove  that  everyone  should 
be  subject  to  the  Pope  because  we  have  a  Supreme 
Court,  and  also,  that  the  doctrine  that  they  have 
the  power  to  forgive  sins  is  all  right  because  some 
governors  of  states  have  the  pardoning  power.  The 
Supreme  Court  and  executives  of  states  are  means 
of  protecting  people  against  criminals.  The  court 
is  for  the  trial  of  crimes — of  what  are  recognized 
by  all  as  crimes.  The  "sins"  of  sending  children 
to  public  schools,  and  of  failing  to  attend  mass  are 
not  recognized  by  the  laws  of  states  as  crimes;  if 
they  were  they  would  be  judged  and  punished  by 
authorities  instituted  by  the  people.  Theological 
opinions  of  "sins"  differ,  and  if  the  State  is  wise 
it  does  not  meddle  with  them,  but  attends  to  its 
own  legitimate  business.  The  belief  in  the  power 
of  a  priest  over  the  temporal  or  spiritual  affairs  of 
other  men;  the  belief  that  one  man  can  assume 
absolute  control  over  another,  is  very  often  denied, 
while  all  admit  that  the  machinery  of  the  State  is 
for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  people. 


160  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

GOSPELS— SALVATION— INFIDELS. 

Ingersoll.  "It  is  easy  to  account  for  the  differ- 
ences and  contradictions  in  these  'depositions' 
[Mr.  Black  had  called  them  depositions]  (and 
there  are  hundreds  of  them)  by  saying  that  each 
one  told  the  story  as  he  remembered  it,  or  as  he 
had  heard  it,  or  that  the  accounts  have  been 
changed,  but  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  witnesses 
were  inspired  of  God.  We  can  account  for  these 
contradictions  by  the  infirmities  of  human  nature; 
but,  as  I  said  before,  the  infirmities  of  human  na- 
ture cannot  be  predicated  of  a  divine  being." 

Lambert  takes  the  first  sentence,  leaving  out 
the  parenthetic  part,  says  it  is  easy  to  account  for 
things  by  "saying";  "that  is  the  way  you  account 
for  almost  everything,"  but  it  does  not  account  for 
everything.  "It  has  been  the  misfortune  of  your 
theological  career  that  you  have  placed  too  much 
reliance  on  'saying*  and  too  little  on  'proving.' " 

Comment.  Notice,  that  is  entirely  aside  from  the 
argument,  besides  being  untrue. 

He  says  no  contradictions  have  been  shown  (  !) 
so  there  is  no  necessity  for  accounting  for  them. 
"Hence  your  cunning  method  of  accounting  for 
them  by  'saying'  is  gratuitous,  uncalled  for  and  en- 
tirely inconsistent  with  Christian  principles.  Chris- 
tianity must  be  defended  by  straight,  true,  and  cor- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  161 

rect  methods  or  none.  It  cannot  afford  to  be  de- 
fended in  the  spirit  in  which  you  attack  it.  It 
must  not  use  sophistry,  or  cunning,  or  wit,  or  jokes, 
or  lies.  Its  platform  is  truth,  and  if  that  ground 
sinks  it  must  go  under  with  it." 

Comment.  This  assumption  that  he  uses  the 
straight  methods  instead  of  the  others  which  he 
censures  is  wonderful,  even  for  him. 

He  makes  so  many  references  to  jokes,  which 
he  ascribes  to  Ingersoll,  that  I  will  copy  the  only 
anecdote  that  appears  in  the  whole  article,  and  let 
all  compare  it  with  the  frequent  sallies  of  the  "Holy 
Father." 

Ingersoll.  "A  little  while  ago,  in  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago, a  gentleman  addressed  a  number  of  Sunday 
school  children.  In  his  address  he  stated  that 
some  people  were  wicked  enough  to  deny  the  story 
of  the  deluge;  that  he  was  a  traveler;  that  he  had 
been  to  the  top  of  Mount  Ararat,  and  had  brot  with 
him  a  stone  from  that  sacred  locality.  The  children 
were  then  invjted  to  form  in  procession  and  walk 
by  the  pulpit,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  this  won- 
derful stone.  After  they  had  looked  at  it,  the  lec- 
turer said:  'Now,  children,  if  you  ever  hear  any- 
body deny  the  story  of  the  deluge,  or  say  that  the 
ark  did  not  rest  on  Mount  Ararat,  you  can  tell 
them  that  you  know  better,  because  you  have  seen 


162  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

with  your  own  eyes  a  stone  from  that  very  moun- 
tain.' " 

Comment.  This  was  to  illustrate  his  argument 
that  "All  the  natural  things  in  the  world  were  not 
sufficient  to  establish  the  supernatural."  I  wish 
there  were  space  to  give  his  whole  argument  con- 
cerning that  point  in  the  debate.  The  story  comes 
in  to  show  you  that  it  is  pertinent  to  the  argument, 
and  that  he  brings  in  no  personal  flouts  at  Mr. 
Black. 

Ingersoll.  "Why  should  there  be  more  than  one 
inspired  Gospel?" 

Lambert.  "The  fact  that  there  were  four  in- 
spired Gospels  written  is  sufficient  evidence  that 
there  was  reason  for  four.  God  does  not  act  with- 
out reason.  But  your  question  shows  that  you  do 
not  understand  what  is  meant  by  inspiration.  An 
inspired  history  is  not  necessarily  a  complete  his- 
tory. The  inspiration  has  reference  to  what  is  said 
by  an  inspired  writer,  and  not  to  what  is  not  said 
by  him."  This  is  the  substance  of  the  argument 
tho  he  keeps  on  for  two  more  pages,  getting  in, 
by  the  way,  the  repetition  "while  you  talk  so  glibly 
about  inspiration  you  do  not  know  what  it  means" 
— the  repetition  with  an  added  insult.  He  explains 
that  while  one  Gospel  was  written  for  one  set  of 
people,  another  was  written  for  another  set. 
While  they  were  all  inspired  while  being  written 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  163 

they  do  not  all  tell  everything.  He  amplifies  on 
what  was  written  for  the  Jews,  what  for  the  Gen- 
tiles, what  for  Theophilus,  and  what  (John)  to 
refute  heresies. 

Comment.  [The  thot  here  arises  that  none  of 
them  were  written  for  Americans  of  1908.] 

Ingersoll.  "There  can  be  only  one  true  account 
of  anything." 

Lambert.  "You  confound  true  with  complete 
and  adequate."  "They  are  all  true,  different,  yet 
not  contradictory.  The  truth  of  history  depends 
on  what  it  says,  not  what  it  does  not  say  .  .  . 
You  simply  confound  true  with  complete  and  ade- 
quate. A  school  boy  writing  his  first  composition 
might  be  excused  for  an  improper  use  of  adjectives, 
but  a  philosopher  should  be  more  careful — or  more 
honest." 

Comment.  No  one  who  reads  Ingersoll  will  be- 
lieve that  he  does  not  perfectly  understand  the  dif- 
ference between  true,  complete  and  adequate,  or 
that  he  doesn't  use  words  in  their  proper  significa- 
tion— or  that  he  uses  words  when  he  lacks  ideas. 
"More  honest,"  like  the  rest  of  this  person's  hap- 
hazard ammunition,  is  as  ineffectual  as  tooth 
powder. 

Ingersoll.  "That  which  is  a  test  of  truth  as  to 
ordinary  witnesses  is  a  demonstration  against  their 
inspiration." 


164  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Lambert.  "The  test  of  truth  in  the  case  of  or- 
dinary witnesses  is  the  fact  of  their  agreement. 
The  fact  that  the  evangelists  agree  in  the  state- 
ments made  by  them  is  evidence  of  their  truth,  just 
as  in  the  case  of  ordinary  witnesses.  Now,  how 
the  evidence  of  their  veracity  can  be  a  demonstra- 
tion against  their  inspiration  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand. You  have  said  if  they  disagree  they  can- 
not be  inspired,  and  you  are  right.  But  you  are 
not  satisfied;  you  now  try  to  prove  that  if  they 
agree  they  cannot  be  inspired.  Any  remarks  of 
mine  on  this  reasoning  of  yours  would  only  draw 
the  reader  from  a  contemplation  of  its  sublimity. 
So  we  will  pass  in  silence  to  other  points." 

Comment.  This  confused  me  for  a  time,  and  I 
began  to  consider  evidences  of  credibility  in  ordi- 
nary and  in  inspired  witnesses  to  see  what  Inger- 
soll  meant.  But  reading  the  whole  paragraph  in 
the  Ingersoll-Black  discussion  cleared  away  the 
smoke.  His  sentence  means,  in  other  words,  if 
the  same  test  of  truth  that  is  applied  to  ordinary 
witnesses  is  applied  to  them  it  will  demonstrate 
that  they  are  not  inspired. 

Ingersoll.  "My  doctrine  is  that  there  is  only  one 
way  to  be  saved,  and  that  is  to  act  in  harmony  with 
your  surroundings — to  live  in  accordance  with  the 
facts  of  your  being." 

Lambert.     "Then  you  have  changed  your  'doc- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  165 

trine'  considerably  since  you  began  your  article. 
Your  'doctrine'  in  the  first  part  of  it  was  that  there 
is  no  God,  or  at  least  that  we  cannot  know  whether 
there  is  or  not;  that  a  future  life  was  'invented' 
by  Christians  to  give  God  a  chance  to  rectify  the 
mistakes  of  this.  Your  'doctrine'  now  is  that  there 
is  one  way  at  least,  to  be  saved — it  is  'to  act  in 
harmony  with  your  surroundings.'  Well,  your  sur- 
roundings are  certainly  Christian.  If  you  lived 
among  the  Mormons  you  should  be  a  Mormon;  if 
in  Turkey  you  should  have  a  harem,  and  sit  cross- 
legged  like  a  tailor;  if  among  Thugs  you  should 
be  a  Thug;  if  among  assassins,  an  assassin;  if 
among  thieves,  a  thief !  This  theory  has  the  advan- 
tage of  being  in  harmony  with  the  'elastic  cord 
of  human  feeling.'  " 

Comment.  Does  an  idea  on  the  eternity  of  the 
universe  preclude  the  possibility  of  having  one  also 
on  the  conduct  of  life?  In  what  possible  way 
can  one  conflict  with  the  other,  even  if  the  first 
should  be  called  a  doctrine,  as  it  is  by  Mr.  Lam- 
bert? Cannot  Mr.  Lambert  hold  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  without  first  changing  his  mind  as  to  the 
doctrine  that  unbaptized  infants  are  condemned  to 
eternal  darkness  ? 

I  don't  think  to  act  in  harmony  with  surround- 
ings is  meant  as  Mr.  Lambert  construes  it.  A 
widow  has  children  and  she  must  look  to  their 


i66  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

future  well-being.  She  is  in  a  crowded  part  of  a 
large  city,  is  poor,  but  not  dependent.  Some  peo- 
ple in  her  neighborhood  drink,  talk  loud,  laugh  or 
quarrel  thru  the  first  part  of  the  night,  often.  But 
that  does  not  govern  her  life.  She  must  live  ac- 
cording to  the  circumstances  of  her  own  life.  She 
must  work,  watch  her  children,  read  to  them,  and 
keep  her  own  mind  from  rusting.  It  would  not 
be  in  harmony  with  her  circumstances  to  spend  her 
time  in  gossip,  or  in  mourning  her  hard  lot,  or  in 
pretending  to  be  what  she  is  not.  She  must  live 
in  accordance  with  the  facts  of  her  being,  not  mak- 
ing useless  efforts  to  accomplish  what  is  not  pos- 
sible, but  marking  out  the  best  that  can  be  done, 
and  working  to  that  end.  The  different  surround- 
ings of  others  and  the  different  facts  of  their  being 
call  for  different  manner  of  life  to  be  in  harmony 
with  their  surroundings,  and  the  facts  of  their 
being. 

Mr.  Lambert.  "But  you  explain.  To  live  in  har- 
mony with  your  surroundings  is  to  live  'in  accord- 
ance with  the  facts  of  your  being.'  Good.  This 
is  precisely  what  Christianity  demands  of  us.  But 
what  are  the  facts  of  our  being?  There's  the  rub. 
This  question  brings  the  whole  controversy  back 
to  the  starting  point.  It  is  time  you  should  un- 
derstand that  the  whole  question  between  you  and 
the  Christian,  as  well  as  the  heathen,  the  pagan,  the 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  167 

barbarian,  and  the  Christian  is :  What  are  the  facts 
of  our  being?  This  question  is  the  root  or  founda- 
tion of  all  the  difference  of  opinion  that  ever  ex- 
isted in  the  world  as  to  man,  his  duties  and  his 
obligations.  It  is  the  question  that  philosophers 
in  all  ages  have  tried  in  vain  to  solve,  and  which 
the  Christian  believes  unaided  reason  cannot  solve. 

"What  am  I?  Whence  came  I?  Whither  am 
I  drifting?  Your  answer  to  these  questions  is:  I 
do  not  know.  Your  reply  is  true,  tho  no  answer. 

"It  is  a  common  understanding  among  men  of 
sense  that  when  a  man  confesses  ignorance  of  a 
subject,  he  should  not  force  himself  to  the  front 
and  confuse  investigation  by  his  ignorant,  garrulous 
talk.  If  he  confessedly  knows  nothing  of  the  sub- 
ject under  investigation,  it  is  incumbent  on  him, 
as  a  man  of  sense,  to  hold  his  tongue.  Ignorance 
is  no  disgrace  where  it  is  not  one's  own  fault,  but 
there  is  nothing  so  admirable  in  an  ignorant  man 
as  a  quiet  tongue  and  an  attentive  ear;  and  there 
is  nothing  more  pitiable  and  detestable  in  God's 
universe  than  an  ignorant  man  trying  to  play  the 
role  of  a  teacher  of  mankind. 

"What  are  the  facts  of  our  being? 

"It  is  the  mission  of  the  true  religion  to  answer 
this  question.  And  by  God's  help  it  has  been  an- 
swering it  and  dinning  it  into  the  ears  of  hu- 
manity, as  it  surges  by,  generation  after  genera- 


i68  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

tion,  from  the  time  of  Adam  down  to  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1884,  and  it  will  continue  to  do  so  un- 
til the  angel  of  eternity  calls  the  muster  roll  of 
time.  Voltaires,  Frerets,  Gibbons,  Diderots,  Paines 
and  Ingersolls  will  appear  from  time  to  time  to 
curse  the  moral  world,  as  plagues,  small-pox,  lep- 
rosy and  insanity  have  cursed  the  physical  world. 
But  Christianity  is  destined  to  survive  the  one,  as 
the  human  race  survived  the  other." 

Comment.  He  says  unaided  reason  cannot  solve 
the  question,  What  are  the  facts  of  our  being?— 
philosophers  have  tried  vainly  thro  all  the  ages  to 
solve  it,  tho  true  religion  has  been  answering  it 
since  Adam's  time.  Why  does  not  he  tells  us  the 
answer?  Why  have  not  the  philosophers  and  all 
the  rest  of  us  heard  the  answer  which  he  says 
religion  has  been  dinning  into  our  ears? 

In  my  opinion  the  above  dissertation  has  been 
spread  out  before  us  with  all  this  pomp  and  cir- 
cumstance of  words  to  make  us  think  there  is 
something  deep  and  mysterious  under  it,  while  in 
reality  the  facts  of  our  being  are  pretty  well  un- 
derstood by  all  who  take  the  trouble  to  make  their 
lives  worth  living.  I  said  those  who  take  the 
trouble,  but  they  are  really  the  ones  who  get  the 
greatest  joy  and  satisfaction  out  of  life.  Mr.  Lam- 
bert is  great  on  definitions.  Suppose  we  take  this 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  169 

for  a  definition  of  the  facts  of  your  being:  What 
you  are< 

What  am  I?  Whence  came  I?  Whither  am  I 
drifting?  are  not  Ingersoll's  questions.  They  are 
the  questions  people  ask  when  they  are  leading  up 
to  talk  of  God  and  immortality.  I  don't  think  any- 
one in  thotful  seriousness  ever  asks,  whither  am 
I  drifting?  No  worthy  person  ever  drifts. 

INFIDELS— ATHEISTS— REASON. 

Chapter  xx  begins  with  contemptuous  jests  to 
the  effect  that  an  honest  Infidel  could  not  be  found ; 
but  if  the  evangelical  pulpit  "could  be  convinced 
of  the  'honesty'  of  an  Infidel,  and  his  decency  in 
other  respects,  it  would  check  him  thru  as  a  vic- 
tim of  defective  phrenal  development." 

This  is  the  ansiver  to,  "For  the  honest  Infidel,  ac- 
cording to  the  American  evangelical  pulpit,  there  is 
no  heaven." 

And  the  following,  on,  "For  the  upright  Atheist 
there  is  nothing  in  another  world  but  punishment." 

Lambert.  "The  upright  or  downright  Atheist 
will  no  doubt  be  treated  as  the  upright  rebel  or 
traitor  is  treated  by  the  government  whose  laws 
he  defies,  and  whose  authority  he  rejects.  Chris- 
tianity teaches  that  God  loves  the  honest  man,  that 
he  will  never  punish  him  for  his  honest  convictions ; 


170  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

it  teaches  also  that  God,  who  is  infinitely  wise, 
knows  the  difference  between  an  honest  man  and  a 
loquacious  demagogue.  Christianity  teaches  that 
honesty  is  an  affair  of  the  heart  and  conscience, 
and  not  a  matter  of  word-spinning  and  gush." 

Comment.  When  he  says  Christianity  teaches 
that  God  loves  an  honest  man  he  is  using  the  word 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  more  and  more  as 
belief  in  its  creeds  changes  or  dies.  Many  drop 
the  beliefs  of  Christianity,  and  speak  of  it  as  if 
the  word  were  synonymous  with  the  word  good- 
ness. The  beliefs  are  sustained  by  many  who  keep 
them  in  the  background,  or  even  deny  them;  these 
people  call  goodness  Christianity,  tho  it  is  really 
the  beliefs  they  are  sustaining  under  the  name  of 
goodness,  which  they  call  Christianity.  But  this 
priest  sustains  Catholicism  which  is  the  only  thing 
he  recognizes  as  Christianity.  When  any  good 
qualities  are  brot  up  in  an  argument  he  sweeps  them 
into  his  basket,  tho  they  do  not  belong  to  him, 
and  he  does  not  carry  them  home  with  him,  for  his 
Christianity  is  the  real,  old-fashioned,  deep-dyed 
Catholic  belief. 

One  would  think  he  would  hesitate  to  use  the 
expression  word-spinning,  it  so  obviously  applies 
to  his  style,  and  is  so  directly  opposite  to  that  of 
Ingersoll. 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  171 

Ingersoll.  "Mr.  Black  admits  that  lunatics  and 
idiots  are  in  no  danger  of  hell." 

Lambert.  "That  should  be  a  consolation  to  many) 
for  we  are  told  that  the  number  of  fools  is  in- 
finite." 

Ingersoll.  "This  being  so,  'his  God  should  have 
created  only  lunatics  and  idiots." 

Lambert.  "He  has  in  his  inscrutable  ways  created 
more  than  we  poor  finite  creatures  can  understand 
the  reason  for,  and  he  permits  them  to  play  their 
antics  before  high  heaven  to  an  extent  that  can 
be  explained  only  by  reference  to  his  infinite  pa- 
tience." 

Comment.  Can  anyone  be  found  who  thinks  these 
sentences  are  answers?  Did  this  man  think  when 
he  began  to  write  the  "Notes"  that  he  would  not 
attempt  argument,  but  would  depend  on  his  readers' 
being  satisfied  with  cheap  wit,  chiefly  in  the  form 
of  insults  and  evasions?  To  those  of  us  who  do 
not  think  him  an  infallible  teacher  such  efforts 
will  not  attain  their  purpose,  but  as  far  as  we  are 
able  to  judge  of  his  subjects  they  must  appear  to 
accept  whatever  he  offers,  as  valuable  truth,  or 
keen  and  convincing  retort,  whether  they  really  do 
or  not.  I  presume  they  generally  really  do  so  ac- 
cept it. 

Notice  his  thot  in  the  elaborate  sentence  above: 
God  created  lunatics  and  idiots,  and  allows  them 


172  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

to  live  the  kind  of  life  he  gave  them  because  he 
,  is  patient.  No  one  is  expected  to  ask  why  he  should 
create  unfortunates  instead  of  happy  and  useful 
people. 

Notice,  also,  he  disregards  the  argument  entire- 
ly in  his  answers. 

Ingersoll.  "Why  should  the  fatal  gift  of  brain 
be  given  to  any  human  being,  if  such  gift  renders 
him  liable  to  eternal  hell?" 

[His  comments  on  this  are  long,  but  can  be  sum- 
marized because  they  are  given  as  arguments,  and 
are  not  personal  abuse.  Let  us  mark  this  to  his 
credit — he  substitutes  argument.] 

Lambert.  Reason  was  given  to  be  used  and  not 
abused.  [He  answers  what  he  calls  Ingersoll's 
theory  by  these  illustrations:]  A  man  should  not 
be  deprived  of  a  pistol,  razor,  or  knife  because  he 
might  harm  himself  with  them ;  a  man  may  learn  to 
write  tho  his  knowledge  renders  him  liable  to 
forge;  he  may  have  hands  tho  he  should  steal  or 
murder  with  them;  you  can  eat  tho  you  might  eat 
too  much;  you  have  a  tongue  tho  you  might  talk 
nonsense  or  commit  perjury.  "What  would  you 
think  or  say  of  God  if,  to  free  us  from  all  possible 
danger,  he  should  deprive  us  of  every  faculty  that 
may  be  abused,  of  everything  that  constitutes  us 
men — everything  that  makes  life  worth  living?" 

Comment.     Men  soon  learn  the  right  use  for 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  173 

knives,  etc.,  and  the  evil  consequences  of  a  bad  use 
of  them  prevent  most  people  from  putting  them 
to  a  bad  use.  The  argument  was  concerning  the 
danger  of  hell.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  be  de- 
prived of  everything  which  makes  life  worth  liv- 
ing, if  this  short  life  were  followed  by  an  eternity 
of  bliss?  What  would  it  profit  a  man  to  be  fitted 
to  enjoy  all  the  blessings  of  this  life  if  an  eternity 
of  hell  might  follow?  Besides  all  these  things  are 
supposed  to  be  in  the  power  of  God,  and  that  he 
has  foreknowledge  of  everything.  Some  theo- 
logians say  that  he  does  not  foreordain,  but  he  has 
foreknowledge.  It  seems  to  me  that  foreknowledge 
vould  make  foreordination  necessary  to  a  good 
chai  acter. 

From  Mr.  Lambert's  argument  we  infer  that  God 
did  not  deprive  idiots  and  lunatics  of  brains  to  save 
them  from  hell.  He  gives  no  hint  of  what  he  thinks 
God's  purpose  is. 

What  is  abuse  of  the  reason?  The  more  reason 
a  man  has  the  more  good  he  can  do.  A  man's 
learning  to  write  is  never  going  to  make  him  a 
forger.  There  is  something  the  matter  with  the 
forger's  brain.  He  is  a  criminal,  and  he  would 
be  one  if  he  did  not  know  how  to  write.  The  more 
reason  he  has,  the  less  danger  of  criminality. 

Ingersoll.  "Better  be  an  idiot  in  this  world  if 
you  can  be  a  seraph  in  the  next." 


174  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Lambert.  "Better  be  an  idiot  saved  than  a  phil- 
osopher damned.  But  fortunately  for  men  of  com- 
mon average  sense,  there  is  a  middle  course.  Idiots 
and  philosophers  are  extremes — phenomenal  and 
exceptional.  The  majority  of  mankind  are  neither, 
while  they  are  sometimes  the  victims  of  both." 

Comment.  Here  we  have  a  new  idea :  it  is  better 
to  be  half-way  idiot;  a  very  good  mind  is  danger- 
ous. Blessed  idiots  in  heaven;  and  damned  phil- 
osophers in  hell!  What  a  prospect  for  a  future 
life! 

The  only  reason  one  can  have  for  preferring  to 
be  an  idiot  is  the  theological  one. 

I  do  not  see  how  a  person  can  be  a  victim  of  a 
philosopher.  I  believe  that  outside  of  the  church 
they  are  thot  to  be  benefactors  of  the  race.  We 
read  in  Catholic  books  and  hear  Catholics  say  when 
they  have  no  reason  for  an  argument,  "The  pride 
of  intellect  has  lost  many  a  soul  and  will  lose 
many  more."  Why  should  a  modest  question  about 
the  reason  for  a  belief  indicate  pride  of  intellect 
any  more  than  the  dogmatic  statement  of  a  belief? 
What  is  pride  of  intellect?  I  never  heard  the 
phrase  applied  to  anything  but  the  use  of  reason 
on  a  religious  subject.  The  use  of  intellect  is 
considered  commendable  on  any  other  subject. 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  175 

THE  ATONEMENT. 

Ingersoll.  "For  nearly  two  thousand  years  Judas 
Iscariot  has  been  execrated  by  mankind ;  and  yet  if 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  is  true,  upon  his  treach- 
ery hung  the  plan  of  salvation.  Suppose  Judas 
had  known  of  this  plan — known  that  he  was  se- 
lected by  Christ  for  that  very  purpose,  that  Christ 
was  depending  on  him.  And  suppose  that  he  also 
knew  that  only  by  betraying  Christ  could  he  save 
either  himself  or  others ;  what  ought  Judas  to  have 
done?  Are  you  willing  to  rely  upon  an  argument 
that  justifies  the  treachery  of  that  wretch?" 

Lambert.  "Judas  is  justly  execrated  because  he 
was  a  traitor  and  gave  away  his  friend.  His  trea- 
son has  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment. Judas  was  a  free  agent.  The  plan  of  sal- 
vation involved  the  death  of  Christ,  but  not  by  the 
treason  of  Judas. 

"Suppose  that  he  was  not  selected  for  this  very 
purpose;  that  Christ  was  not  depending  on  him. 
Where  did  you  learn  that  Judas  was  selected  for 
this  very  purpose,  or  that  Christ  depended  on  him  ?" 

Comment.  According  to  the  plan,  then,  how  was 
the  sacrifice  to  be  carried  thru?  Did  God  provide 
the  victim  and  leave  the  rest  to  chance? — but  that 
could  not  be,  for,  according  to  the  Bible,  every- 
thing took  place  according  to  the  plan.  It  was 


176  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

understood  by  Judas  and  Jesus.  Jesus  said  he 
was  going  to  be  given  up  to  the  authorities  by  one 
of  the  disciples,  and  when  the  time  came  he  told 
Judas  to  do  it  quickly  and  Judas  obeyed. 

The  Bible  does  not  say  whether  Judas  was  in- 
structed in  the  whole  scheme  or  not.  He  might 
have  performed  the  part  set  for  him,  and  might 
have  thot  Jesus  could  vanish  when  arrest  seemed 
imminent,  as  he  had  done  before.  At  any  rate,  it 
always  seemed  queer  to  me  to  worship  the  victim 
of  a  sacrifice,  which  was  accomplished  in  a  few 
hours,  and  forever  execrate  the  memory  of  the  un- 
fortunate agent — or  we  might  include  Pilate,  and 
say  agents. 

When  Judas  saw  that  Jesus  did  not  escape  he 

was  much  distressed  and .  How  did  he  die?  I 

think  the  account  which  says  he  hanged  himself  is 
the  one  preferred  by  most  of  those  who  speak  of 
him. 

"Him"  (Jesus)  "being  delivered  by  the  deter- 
minate counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have 
taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have  sacrificed  and 
slain"  (Acts  ii,  23). 

Altho  this  text  has  not  before  been  introduced 
into  this  discussion  as  far  as  I  know,  I  do  not  think 
it  irrelevant  to  the  subject  of  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  Judas.  Paige,  in  his  commentaries,  says 
as  to  "By  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowl- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  177 

edge  of  God — When  God  sent  his  son  into  the 
world,  nothing  pertaining  to  his  mission  or  its  re- 
sults was  a  matter  of  chance  or  contingency.  Every 
circumstance  was  clearly  and  distinctly  foreseen, 
and  absolutely  determined  by  the  Supreme  Ruler. 
So  much  is  here  distinctly  affirmed;  and  any  con- 
trary supposition  would  be  manifestly  inconsistent 
with  a  just  conception  of  an  omniscient  and  omnip- 
otent God."  There  is  much  more,  too  long  to 
quote,  but  the  closing  sentence  is  this:  "Let  no 
man  flatter  himself  that  he  is  guiltless,  because  God 
rules  the  world;  for  guilt  results  from  an  evil  de- 
sign." (I  wish  I  had  more  commentaries;  they  are 
interesting  reading.) 

The  above  explanation  agrees  with  the  Bible  ac- 
count, but  I  should  like  to  have  some  one  bring 
about  an  agreement  between  the  idea  that  the  sac- 
rifice was  all  arranged  and  carried  out  by  God,  and 
yet  his  agent  was  a  guilty  man — a  contemptible 
traitor.  Ingersoll  refers  to  the  "treachery  of  that 
wretch,"  but  Ingersoll  does  not  believe  the  dogma 
of  the  atonement. 

Lambert  quotes:  "And  suppose."  That  stands 
on  one  line.  On  the  next  line  he  begins  this  won- 
drous comment:  "No,  sir;  we  must  suppose  noth- 
ing. I  want  facts  and  not  suppositions  and 
guesses."  That  is  all  he  says  about  it.  He  does 
not  quote  the  rest  of  the  sentence,  which  is  this: 


178  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

"And  suppose  that  he  also  knew  that  only  by  be- 
traying Christ  could  he  save  either  himself  or 
others ;  what  ought  Judas  to  have  done  ?" 

The  first  "suppose,"  which  Lambert  answers  by 
saying,  Suppose  he  was  not — a  clear  evasion — was 
a  question  of  fact.  The  next  "suppose"  he  an- 
swers as  a  word,  as  if  he  had  just  noticed  the  word 
for  the  first  time,  and  calls  for  facts.  While  the 
first  one  can  be  answered  by  statement  of  the  fact 
of  the  Bible  story  (this  does  not  involve  the  truth 
of  the  story),  the  last  one,  the  one  where  he  calls 
for  facts,  involves  a  religious  dogma  only. 

Taking  up  this  same  dogma  as  stated  by  Inger- 

%soll,  "Are  you  willing  to  rely  upon  an  argument 

that   justifies    that   wretch?"   he   replies,   without 

touching  the  only  real  question  of  the  controversy, 

with  low  abuse  of  Ingersoll,  the  man. 

The  whole  tirade  here  follows : 

Lambert.  "No,  I  am  not,  any  more  than  I  am 
ready  to  rely  upon  your  assertions.  Judas  was  a 
bad  man,  but  there  are  worse  men  living  than  he. 
He  did  not  go  lecturing  about  Judea,  boasting  of 
his  crime,  and  ridiculing  the  Christ  whom  he  had 
betrayed — he  went  and  hanged  himself.  I  do  not 
commend  his  desperate  act,  because  suicide  is  mur- 
der, but  the  fellow  showed  some  respect  for  the 
opinions  of  his  fellow  men  by  ridding  them  of  his 
detestable  presence.  He  loved  money,  but  in  this 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  179 

he  was  not  alone.  There  were  no  lecture  bureaus 
in  those  days,  and  he  felt  that  his  career  was  at 
an  end.  Had  he  known  that  others  would  come  to 
continue  his  work  he  might  have  been  terrified,  and 
perhaps  repented,  but  not  foreseeing  this  he  only 
hanged  himself." 

Comment.  It  makes  no  difference  to  this  ma- 
licious calumniator  that  Ingersoll  did  not  say  one 
word  against  Jesus,  and  that  he  spoke  of  him  in 
terms  of  admiring  respect  on  pages  94  and  102. 
When  a  man  argues  against  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible,  he  is  accused  of  ridiculing  Jesus.  What 
would  that  kind  of  argument  be  called  if  it  could 
be  engaged  in  by  an  Infidel? 

So,  Mr.  Lambert  thinks  that  the  character  of 
Judas  is  justly  execrated,  but  better  than  that  of 
Ingersoll,  because  Judas  did  not  go  about  boasting 
of  his  crime.  If  Lambert  had  ever  found  any 
boasting  in  any  of  the  Ingersoll  writings  it  seems 
certain  that  he  would  make  no  delay  in  publish- 
ing his  discovery.  As  for  crime,  who  but  a  very 
inferior  Catholic  priest  would  make  himself  ridicu- 
lous enough  to  stigmatize  the  expression  of  opinion 
on  religion  as  a  crime? 

According  to  the  priest  another  way  in  which 
Judas  showed  his  superiority  to  Ingersoll  was  by 
hanging  himself.  Altho  he  pronounces  suicide  the 
crime  of  murder  yet  he  thinks  it  would  have  been 


180  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NORES. 

more  decent  for  Ingersoll  to  commit  that  crime  and 
thus  show  "some  respect  for  the  opinions  of  his 
fellow  men  by  ridding  them  of  his  detestable  pres- 
ence." 

Here  we  come  upon  a  whole  bushel  basketful 
of  delicate,  ripe,  religious,  moral  instruction,  direct 
from  an  infallible  teacher. 

Judas's  love  of  money  is  excused  because  in  hav- 
ing this  fault  he  is  not  alone,  and  in  taking  the 
money  for  the  betrayal  of  Jesus,  he  had  the  fur- 
ther excuse  of  not  knowing  that  Ingersoll  was 
going  to  carry  on  the  work  with  the  aid  of  lec- 
ture bureaus;  if  he  had  known,  says  Mr.  Lambert, 
"he  might  have  repented,  but  as  it  was,  he  only 
hanged  himself." 

Before  getting  hold  of  this  Lambert  idea  we , 
had  been  led  to  believe  that  it  was  supposed  by 
the  Bible  writers  to  be  repentance  which  caused 
his  suicide;  indeed,  the  account  says  so.  However, 
another  Bible  writer  gave  another  version.  He 
said  Judas  killed  himself  by  falling  headlong  in  the 
field  he  had  purchased  with  the  price  of  the  be- 
trayal. 

There  is  some  mistake  about  that  money,  for  the 
writer  of  Matthew  said  when  Judas  saw  that  Jesus 
was  condemned  he  repented,  and  took  back  the 
money  to  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  saying  he 
had  betrayed  an  innocent  man.  They  said,  "What 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  181 

is  that  to  us  ?  See  thou  to  that,"  whereupon  Judas 
threw  down  "the  pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple  and 
departed,  and  went  and  hanged  himself."  This 
account  comes  before  the  other  one  in  the  order 
in  which  the  books  of  the  Bible  are  bound  to- 
gether, which  is,  perhaps,  the  reason  it  is  accepted, 
tho  the  other  one  still  stands  in  the  book  of  Acts. 

What  do  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  who  have 
taken  this  priest  by  the  hand  and  thanked  him  for 
"holding  up  to  the  scorn  and  contempt  of  man- 
kind"— "this  blatant  reviler  of  all  revealed  truth," 
this  "fraudulent  peddler  of  old  Infidel  junk" — 
Ingersoll — what  do  they  think  of  his  idea  that  the 
plan  of  salvation  was  not  carried  out  by  Judas, 
but  has  been  carried  on  by  Col.  Robert  G.  Inger- 
soll some  years  after  the  death  of  Judas?  Will 
they  deem  it  necessary  to  change  hymns  like  this? 
"Jesus  died  upon  a  tree,  That  from  sin  we  might 
be  free,  And  forever  happy  be,  Happy  in  the  Lord. 
He  has  paid  the  debt  we  owe,  If  with  trusting 
hearts  we  go,  He  will  wash  us  white  as  snow,  In 
his  blood.  Then  with  joy  and  gladness  sing, 
Worthy  is  our  Savior  King.  Loudly  let  his  praises 
ring.  Praises  ever  more." 

I  ask  pardon  for  putting  this  stuff  before  you, 
but  Protestants  thot  it  good  enough  to  teach  my 
children  in  the  public  schools,  and  it  was  set  to 
rowdy,  dowdy,  dowdy,  dow  music,  too. 


182  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Mr.  Lambert  says  he  does  not  rely  on  an  argu- 
ment that  justifies  Judas  (the  atonement).  I  should 
think  some  of  the  Protestant  preachers  who  were 
in  the  long  line  of  those  who  congratulated  him  on 
the  "Notes"  would  take  some  notice  of  this  abandon- 
ment of  the  foundation  dogma  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. Catholics,  too,  are  supposed  to  believe  it, 
the  cross,  the  crucifix,  and  images  of  the  Virgin 
Mother  of  God  are  their  chief  emblems.  It  is 
known,  tho,  that  they  insist  that  people  must  ac- 
cept the  offices  of  the  church  if  they  are  to  gain 
salvation. 

Mr.  Lambert  did  not  say  particularly  what  is  to 
be  the  effect  of  Inger soil's  work,  but  the  logical 
conclusion  is  that  it  is  to  somehow  work  for  sal- 
vation under  the  direction  of  the  priests. 

Ingersoll.  "I  insisted  upon  knowing  how  the 
sufferings  of  an  innocent  man  can  satisfy  justice 
for  the  sins  of  the  guilty." 

Lambert's  comments  are  a  fair  exposition  of  the 
Jesuitical  mind,  trained  to  dodge  an  argument  be- 
hind an  array  of  words  which  they  expect,  depend- 
ing on  the  aid  of  religious  mists,  to  pass  muster  as 
containing  sense,  tho  the  beholder  sees  it  only  with 
the  eyes  of  faith. 

It  is  so  long  I  will  give  one  paragraph,  without 
criticizing  his  grammar,  and  summarize  the  most 
of  the  rest. 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOJES.  183 

Lambert.  "It  would  have  been  wiser  to  have  in- 
sisted upon  knowing  the  fact  than  upon  knowing 
the  how  of  it.  There  are  many  facts  that  you 
know  and  admit,  and  yet  if  you  were  asked  the 
how  of  them  you  could  not  answer.  How  do  you 
think?  How  do  you  apprehend  a  thot?  How  do 
you  know  that  you  are,  or  that  you  are  Inger- 
soll?  Would  it  be  just  to  infer  that  you  know 
nothing  because  you  cannot  explain  "how"  you 
know?  This  is  precisely  what  you  expect  of  your 
opponent.  You  ask  how  can  the  sufferings  of  the 
innocent  satisfy  for  the  sins  of  the  guilty?  Your 
opponent  replies  by  saying  that  the  answer  involves 
a  question  of  metaphysics.  He  is,  in  my  opinion, 
wrong  in  this,  because  he  confounds  the  supernat- 
ural with  the  metaphysical.  These  terms  are  not 
synonyms.  To  answer  your  question  he  had  no 
need  to  appeal  to  metaphysics;  in  doing  so  he  ap- 
pealed to  the  wrong  court.  His  appeal  should  have 
been  to  reason;  he  should  have  confined  himself  to 
the  fact,  or  the  possibility  of  it,  and  not  to  the  how 
of  it.  We  don't  know  the  'how'  of  anything; 
and  the  philosopher  who  asks  it  and  expects  an 
adequate  answer  is  nothing  better  than  the  end  man 
in  a  minstrel  show.  Conundrums  are  associated 
with  tambourines  and  burnt  cork.  Lecturers  who 
make  pretensions  to  philosophy  should  not  infringe 
on  the  amusing  trade  of  honest  minstrelsy." 


184  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Comment.  When  the  foundation  dogma  of  the 
Christian  religion — the  atonement — is  stated,  the 
priest  waves  it  contemptuously  away  and  calls  for 
facts.  The  how  that  he  pretends  is  so  inexplicable 
simply  means,  give  reasons  for  this  belief.  In  place 
of  the  five  pages  of  word-spinning  (that  is  a  good 
word  when  it  is  used  right),  it  seems  to  me  it  would 
have  been  much  better  for  him  to  say,  It  is  above 
reason,  God  only  knows. 

How  he  makes  out  that  reasoning  is  a  mere 
statement  of  an  assumed  fact,  instead  of  the  "how" 
of  it,  an  uninspired  mortal  can  never  understand. 
As  for  his  relegating  a  philosopher  who  asks  the 
"how"  to  the  position  of  the  end  man  in  a  min- 
strel show,  such  an  idea  appears  to  be  original  with 
him,  but  if  we  should  read  disquisitions  of  other 
priests  on  the  same  subject  I  presume  we  should 
find  them  all  alike,  and  perhaps  expressed  in  iden- 
tical words. 

Repeating  his  last  quotation  from  Ingersoll  he 
again  recurs  to  the  method  of  lecturing  on  words. 
The  next  three  pages  are  filled  with  solemn  com- 
plaints about  the  use  and  misuse  of  the  word  jus- 
tice. He  says:  "Unless  the  word  is  made  to  ex- 
press a  definite  idea  common  to  your  mind  and 
mine  your  question  is  unintelligible  and  not  sus- 
ceptible of  an  intelligent  answer."  With  many 
words  he  demands  to  know  what  one  of  the  many 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  185 

meanings  of  the  word  is  used.  Again  he  demands 
to  know  what  is  meant  by  the  word  justice?  If 
justice  in  the  abstract,  why  then  it  "is  a  mere  ab- 
straction having  no  entity  of  its  own.  A  pure  ab- 
straction can  induce  no  obligation,  no  duties,  no 
suffering  of  innocent  or  guilty." 

He  continues :  "Do  you  mean  what  theologians  call 
original  justice f  Original  justice  is  the  subjection 
of  the  body  to  the  mind,  the  subjection  of  the  will 
to  reason,  and  the  subjection  of  the  will  to  God. 
This  is  the  justice  that  was  lost  by  Adam's  fall 
and  restored  by  the  suffering  of  Christ. 

"Do  you  mean  divine  justice?  That,  so  far  as 
creatures  are  concerned,  is  the  will  of  God,  and  he 
is  free  to  determine  the  nature  of  atonement. 

"Do  you  mean  justice  in  its  theological  sense? 
In  that  sense  it  is  a  moral  virtue  or  influence  con- 
stantly inclining  the  will  of  man  to  render  to  every 
one  his  own.  This  meaning  can  have  no  ap- 
plication to  your  question. 

Do  you  mean  legal  justice?  Legal  justice  is  that 
which  co-orders  the  parts  or  individuals  of  a  com- 
munity in  reference  to  the  whole,  and  inclines  the 
individual  to  render  to  the  community  what  is 
necessary  for  the  common  good." 

He  proceeds  in  this  manner  thru  distributive 
justice,  commutative  justice,  vindictive  justice  and 
labors  along  this  way:  "You  see  the  word  justice 


i86  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

has  many  meanings.  As  you  are  a  theologian, 
philosopher  and  lawyer,  you  should  be  able  to  say 
in  what  sense  you  use  the  word,  and  you  must  not 
imagine  your  opponent  to  be  fool  enough  to  com- 
mit himself  to  any  answer  till  he  knows  what  you 
ask." 

Thinking,  I  suppose,  that  he  now  has  the  reader 
sufficiently  hypnotized  by  his  unmeaning  mono- 
tone to  believe  there  is  truth  in  the  last  sentence, 
which  he  makes  conspicuous  in  a  paragraph  by 
itself,  he  ascribes  a  fallacy  to  the  question  for  which 
there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation.  Of  course, 
he  cannot  have  any  such  idea  himself,  but  knows 
perfectly  well  that  Mr.  Ingersoll's  question  means 
nothing  of  the  kind.  Here  is  his  pretended  find  of 
a  fallacy:  "The  fallacy  of  your  question  consists 
in  this:  It  supposes  justice  to  be  a  thing  existing 
independent  of  God  and  man,  whereas  it  is  an  at- 
tribute, in  different  degrees,  of  both  God  and  man, 
and  has  no  existence  outside  of  them." 

"But,"  he  says,  "I  am  not  done  with  your  ques- 
tion yet."  ( !)  Then  he  goes  on  with  a  long  para- 
graph, containing  his  usual,  "What  do  you 
mean  by"  satisfy?  and  ending  with  this  astonish- 
ing conclusion:  "Mere  suffering  then,  of  innocent 
or  guilty,  does  not  satisfy  for  sin;  and  this  fact 
takes  the  bottom  out  of  your  question." 

Here  is  an  answer  at  last,  tho  it  does  not  take 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  187 

the  bottom  out  of  the  question.  It  only  takes  the 
bottom  out  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 

But  the  pomp  does  not  come  to  an  end  here; 
there  is  a  long-drawn  paragraph  following: 

Lambert.  "Again  you  ask:  How  can  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  innocent  satisfy  for  the  sins  of  the 
guilty?  The  mere  suffering  alone  of  the  innocent 
do  not  satisfy  for  the  sins  of  the  guilty.  They  can, 
however,  satisfy  for  the  suffering  due  the  sins  of 
the  guilty,  which  is  quite  another  thing.  You  can 
pay  a  fine  of  five  dollars  for  a  loafer  who  has  com- 
mitted an  assault,  and  save  him  the  sufferings  of 
six  months  in  the  workhouse;  but  while  your  vi- 
carious sufferings  to  the  extent  of  five  dollars  re- 
mit the  punishment,  they  do  not  satisfy  for  the 
offense.  I  think  by  this  time  the  reader  sees  that 
the  question  upon  which  you  'insisted'  means  noth- 
ing when  cleared  and  cleaned  of  its  sophistry  and 
words  of  double  meaning.  Mr.  Black  was  wrong 
when  he  said  it  raised  a  'metaphysical  question.' 
He  should  have  said  it  raised  a  psychological  or 
phrenological  question  involving  the  condition  of 
your  mind  or  brain  when  you  asked  it." 

Comment.  Does  anyone  have  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  atonement  now?  We  always  knew 
that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  supposed  to  save  be- 
lievers from  suffering  for  their  sins.  He  says  suf- 
fering of  the  innocent  or  guilty  does  not  along 


i88  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

satisfy  justice  for  the  sins,  tho  he  does  not  men- 
tion what  else  is  necessary.  He  says  it  can  satisfy 
for  the  suffering  due  to  the  sins,  which,  he  says,  is 
a  very  different  thing.  He  illustrates  by  pointing  out 
that  one  can  pay  another's  fine,  but  that  does  not 
satisfy  for  the  offense.  It  seems  the  law  permits 
it,  but  it  does  not  permit  one  to  pay  the  penalty 
of  another  for  murder.  Mr.  Lambert  may  be- 
lieve the  doctrine  of  atonement,  but  he  does  not 
explain  it,  nor  does  he  show  anything  wrong  about 
Ingersoll's  question.  He  could  get  along  better 
explaining  absolution. 

Ingersoll.  "To  answer  an  argument,  is  it  only 
necessary  to  say  that  it  raises  a  metaphysical  ques- 
tion?" 

Lambert.  "No;  but  a  question,  to  deserve  an 
answer,  should  have  some  sense  to  it." 

Comment.  The  question,  remember,  was:  How 
can  the  suffering  of  an  innocent  man  satisfy  for 
the  sins  of  the  guilty? 

NON-RESISTANCE. 

Ingersoll.  "The  idea  of  non-resistance  never  oc- 
curred to  the  man  with  the  power  to  protect  him- 
self. This  doctrine  was  the  child  of  weakness, 
born  when  resistance  was  impossible.  To  allow 
a  crime  to  be  committed  when  you  can  prevent  it, 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  189 

is  next  to  committing  the  crime  yourself." 

Mr.  Lambert  quotes  the  two  first  sentences.  The 
weakest  mind  could  not  fail  to  understand  what 
was  meant  by  non-resistance  by  reading  the  first 
sentence,  and  would  find  the  idea  perfectly  clear 
and  definite,  but  the  priest  begins : 

Lambert.  "This  is  one  of  your  soft,  indefinite 
generalities.  Let  us  see  what  it  means  and  what 
it  is  worth  practically. 

"Non-resistance  to  what?" 

Comment.  Would  you  believe  it?  and  he  says 
the  very  same  thing  again  on  the  very  next  page. 
He  keeps  on  for  more  than  a  page  as  if  supposing 
Mr.  Ingersoll  meant  to  favor  resistance  to  things 
which  no  one  thinks  of  opposing. 

Lambert.  He  says  there  can  be  resistance  and 
non-resistance  only  where  there  is  aggression 
[which  is  true]  ;  that  aggression  may  be  just  or 
unjust  [which  is  news  to  me].  He  says  your 
natural  rights  are  limited  or  infringed  on  by  society, 
and  that  is  just  aggression.  To  this  aggression  you 
agree,  and  therefore  the  idea  of  non-resistance  must 
have  occurred  to  you.  Then  the  tax  collector  ag- 
gresses on  you;  you  yield  and  pay.  Here  again  is 
the  idea  of  non-resistance.  The  idea  occurs  to  every 
honest  man.  Woe  to  the  government  whose  citi- 
zens yield  only  because  they  must.  "Such  citizens 
cannot  be  trusted  in  time  of  danger.  They  are 


190  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

latent  rebels  every  one  of  them.  Resistance  to  the 
just  requirements  of  law  is  sinful,  and  non-resist- 
ance a  duty.  Hence  the  idea  of  it  should  and 
does  occur  to  every  honest,  loyal  citizen/' 

Comment.  After  this  long  pursuit  of  the  phan- 
toms of  his  dream  he  appears  to  get  partially  awake, 
and  subsides  thus: 

Lambert.  "You  will  say  that  you  meant  non- 
resistance  to  unjust  power  and  tyranny.  Probably 
you  did.  But  you  did  not  say  it,  and  a  man  of 
your  power  of  talk  is  expected  to  say  what  he 
means." 

Comment.  He  did  say  it,  and  Mr.  Lambert  could 
not  help  seeing  what  he  said  about  the  "power  to 
protect  himself,"  before  writing  all  those  com- 
ments for  the  purpose  of  clouding  over  the  text 
or  at  least  putting  it  in  a  false  light.  He  most 
likely  also  saw  the  sentence,  "To  allow  a  crime  to 
be  committed  when  you  can  prevent  it  is  next  to 
committing  the  crime  yourself."  Yet  he  goes  on 
with  a  ridiculous  sermon  about  just  and  unjust 
aggressions!  and  patriotic  citizens — disregarding 
the  plain  text  of  his  discourse. 

Lambert,  repeating  the  quotation,  again  says: 
"Non-resistance  to  what?"  [This  is  certainly  a 
unique  book]  "as  you  reject  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance  without  limitation,  it  follows  that  you 
hold  the  opposite  doctrine  without  limitation,  which 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  IQI 

is  that  you  believe  in  resistance  to  everything.  But 
you  are  not  original  in  this.  The  world  is  familiar 
with  men  of  this  kind,  and  has  provided  for  them 
as  comfortably  as  circumstances  will  permit." 

Comment.  This  is  worth  preserving  as  an  ex- 
ample of  sophistry  in  its  worst  sense. 

STANDARD  OF  RIGHT  AND  WRONG. 

Ingersoll.  "Mr.  Black  insists  that  without  be- 
lief in  God  there  can  be  no  perception  of  right  and 
wrong,  and  that  it  is  impossible  for  an  Atheist  to 
have  a  conscience." 

Lambert.  "Mr.  Black  made  no  such  statement 
— insists  on  neither  of  the  things  which  you  attrib- 
ute to  him.  Why  this  misrepresentation?" 

Comment.  As  Ingersoll  was  not  making  a  di- 
rect quotation  he  had  a  perfect  right  to  put  the 
idea  in  his  own  words,  as  he  did  not  change  the 
sense.  Mr.  Lambert  criticizes  Ingersoll  for  the 
use  of  "perception"  and  "conscience";  says  these 
words  are  not  used  by  Mr.  Black;  "it  does  not  re- 
quire much  brains  to  distinguish  between  percep- 
tion of  right  and  standard  of  right." 

Mr.  Black's  words  were:  "Then  for  him  there 
is  no  standard  at  all;  one  thing  is  as  right  as  an- 
other, and  all  things  are  equally  wrong.  Without 
a  ruler  there  can  be  no  law,  and  where  there  is 


IQ2  VIEW    OF    LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

no  law  there  can  be  no  transgression,"  etc.  "No 
perception  of  right  and  wrong"  express  the  same 
thing  more  tersely.  As  for  conscience,  Mr.  Inger- 
soll's  use  of  that  word  does  not  change  the  sense 
of  Mr.  Black's  writing  and  is  justified  by  common 
usage  and  Webster's  dictionary. 

Lambert  next  quotes  Mr.  Ingersoll  about  wars 
of  extermination,  says  he  and  Mr.  Black  differ  as 
to  their  being  wrong,  and  who  shall  decide  be- 
tween them?  They  must  fix  upon  some  com- 
mon standard,  or  measure,  or  form  of  right  and 
wrong.  To  illustrate,  he  says,  suppose  the  disput- 
ants to  disagree  about  the  length  of  a  piece  of 
cloth,  a  yardstick  is  the  common  measure.  "It 
was  the  want  of  a  common  standard  or  measure  like 
this  that  Mr.  Black  called  attention  to  as  an  insur- 
mountable obstacle  in  debating  ethical  questions 
With  you.  He  had  a  standard,  the  will  of  God; 
you  have  none.  Between  him  and  you,  then,  there 
is  no  common  standard,  and  hence  the  difficulty  of 
arguing  with  you." 

Comment.  A  yardstick  cannot  decide  ethical 
questions,  even  if  you  call  it  the  will  of  God.  While 
Mr.  Black  thinks  slavery  right  (wars  of  extermina- 
tion were  mentioned  above,  but  slavery  was  included 
in  the  argument),  because  it  is  the  will  of  God, 
others  may  not  think  it  the  will  of  God,  and  there- 
fore feel  under  no  obligation  to  defend  it.  Inger- 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  193 

soil  shows  very  clearly  why  he  thinks  it  wrong, 
and  many  intelligent,  reputable  people  now  stand 
with  him.  By  the  way,  does  Mr.  Lambert  think 
it  right  under  any  circumstances?  He  and  Mr. 
Black  both  decide  according  to  the  will  of  God — 
but  slavery  has  been  overthrown. 

Ingersoll.  "Yet  I  am  told  that  I  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  right  and  wrong;  that  I  measure  with  'the 
elastic  cord  of  human  feeling,'  while  the  believer 
in  wars  of  extermination  and  human  slavery  meas- 
ures with  the  'golden  metewand  of  God.' " 

Lambert.  "Until  you  have  a  criterion,  or  stand- 
ard of  right  and  wrong  you  cannot  determine  what 
is  right  and  what  is  wrong ;  and  as  long  as  you  can- 
not do  this,  you  cannot  claim  knowledge  on  the 
subject.  You  may  have  'notions'  or  'opinions,'  but 
knowledge  you  cannot  claim." 

Comment.  Ingersoll  has  the  standard  of  high 
courage,  justice,  and  kindness,  and  had  the  will  and 
capacity  to  live  according  to  that  standard.  His 
"notions"  and  "opinions"  of  right  and  wrong  are 
appreciated  by  those  who  know  him  personally  or 
thru  his  writings.  If  those  notions  and  opinions 
differ  from  knowledge,  let  the  difference  be  shown. 

Mr.  Lambert  continues  to  harp  on  the  common 
measure — the  will  of  God.  Let  us  see  about  this 
common  measure.  Of  people  who  may  or  may 
not  be  believers  in  God,  some  have  higher  stand- 


194  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

ards  of  honor  than  others.  One  very  religious 
person  who  would  not  think  of  stealing  any  piece 
of  property  that  might  be  out  of  the  sight  of  the 
owner,  might  take  advantage  of  another  in  trade, 
while  another,  also  very  religious,  would  scorn  to 
do  any  such  thing.  Neither  of  them  has  any  doubt 
but  he  does  the  will  of  God.  How  about  the  com- 
mon measure  in  such  a  case?  Two  men  receive 
an  injury  at  the  hands  of  a  fellow  man.  One  of 
them,  out  of  revenge,  will  do  something  to  the 
injury  of  the  one  who  has  wronged  him.  The 
other  would  never  feel  like  doing  anything  of  the 
kind,  and  if  a  friend  suggests  retaliation,  he  sees 
at  once  that  it  would  not  be  right  and  feels  no 
temptation  to  do  anything  to  the  detriment  of  the 
man  who  has  shown  himself  unfriendly.  Do  these 
two  opposite  examples  have  a  common  standard? 
They  both  believe  in  God,  but  neither  of  them  asks 
whether  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  they  do  or  do 
not  this  thing.  One  of  them  has  a  better  sense  of 
right  and  wrong  which  in  no  way  depends  on  his 
religious  belief,  for  their  beliefs  are  the  same.  One 
man  might  say  I  will  manage  to  buy  this  thing 
for  less  than  it  is  worth  of  this  man  who  would 
not  fail  to  cheat  me  if  he  had  the  chance.  An- 
other man  sees  that  the  seller  does  not  know  that 
the  market  price  has  advanced,  but  it  would  never 
come  into  his  mind  to  take  advantage  of  the  other's 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  195 

ignorance  of  prices.  Have  both  of  these  buyers 
the  metewand  of  God,  or  has  one  a  better  sense 
of  right  than  the  other? 

Lambert  quotes,  "Everything  is  right  that  tends 
to  the  happiness  of  mankind,"  and  judges  it  a  vague 
rule.  He  quotes,  "And  everything  is  wrong  that 
increases  the  sum  of  human  misery,"  and  judges 
it  vague  and  unsatisfactory.  I  leave  out  the  super- 
fluous words  that  go  with  those  opinions.  Far 
from  being  a  vague  rule  it  is  quite  definite.  A 
vague  or  uncertain  rule  would  be  "the  will  of 
God."  There  is  a  wide  difference  in  judgment  as 
to  what  is  the  will  of  God;  some  men  are  kind, 
some  cruel;  some  generous,  some  otherwise;  some 
are  foolish,  some  of  strong  intellect;  some  sober 
and  industrious,  some  lazy  and  intemperate;  con- 
sider each  of  these  in  any  common  affair  of  life,  or 
in  time  of  calamity.  There  are  multitudes  in  all 
of  these  classes  who  every  one  believe  in  God, 
and  think  they  are  doing  his  will.  Is  it  not  a  vague 
rule  that  works  out  such  a  wide  difference  in 
characters  ? 

Mr.  Lambert  asks  Mr.  Ingersoll  if  he  would 
pause  and  reflect  whether  in  the  long  run  it  would 
tend  to  human  happiness  before  performing  an  ac- 
tion? We  might  just  as  well  ask  him  if  he  stops 
to  ask  whether  it  is  the  will  of  God?  Would  not 
each  one  act  according  to  his  character? 


196  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Mr.  Lambert  asks,  "Who  is  to  determine  what  is 
for  the  happiness  of  mankind?"  That  seems  to 
me  to  be  much  easier  than  to  determine  the  will 
of  God.  If  he  saw  a  barefoot  child,  blue  with  cold, 
he  would  know  in  an  instant  what  would  conduce 
to  happiness.  Each  person  determines  actions  ac- 
cording to  his  own  mind  and  character — even  when 
he  determines  the  will  of  God,  and  the  action  is 
determined  when  the  occasion  comes. 

He  kindly  says  as  it  is  plain  that  Mr.  Ingersoll 
does  not  know  what  conscience  is  he  will  give 
him  a  definition  of  it.  "Conscience,"  he  explains, 
"is  a  practical  judgment  which  passes  on  each  and 
every  act  of  our  life,  and  determines,  before  we 
perform  the  act,  whither  it  is  right  or  wrong."  I 
do  not  see  how  that  corrects  Mr.  Ingersoll  in  the 
least.  But  Mr.  Ingersoll  was  not  writing  defini- 
tions, but  a  short  magazine  article.  The  practical 
judgment — the  conscience  shown  in  that  article  is 
above  criticism.  Mr.  Lambert  adds  to  his  defini- 
tion, "It  does  not  determine  what  is  right  and 
wrong  in  the  abstract — that  is  the  office  of  the 
moral  intellect."  How  can  you  determine  in  the 
abstract  what  is  right  or  wrong?  According  to 
common  use  abstract  means  something  considered 
apart  from  other  associated  things.  It  seems  to 
me  the  quality  of  right  and  wrong  must  be  as- 
sociated with  some  idea  or  act;  we  cannot  think 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  197 

of  it  in  any  other  way.  And  what  is  "moral  in- 
tellect" but  conscience?  Is  not  the  moral  judg- 
ment of  the  intellect  the  conscience?  It  seems  to 
me  there  can  be  no  right  and  wrong  in  the  ab- 
stract, and  that  moral  intellect  is  not  a  clear  ex- 
pression; and  it  seems  to  me  the  intellect  is  with 
you  all  the  time,  and  it  judges  of  every  moral  ques- 
tion as  it  arises  in  the  intellect. 

Mr.  Lambert.  "It"  (the  conscience)  "is  not  the 
power  of  realizing  vividly  the  sufferings  of  others, 
as  you  dogmatically  state.  The  word  for  that  is 
sympathy,  or  philanthropy,  not  conscience." 

Comment.  I  take  Mr.  Ingersoll's  argument  to 
mean,  not  that  a  sympathetic  feeling  for  another 
is  conscience,  but  that  the  capacity  for  understand- 
ing and  caring  for  the  feelings  of  another  is  what 
gives  him  conscience. 

Answering  "Consequences  determine  the  quality 
of  an  action,"  Mr.  Lambert  again  brings  forward 
Guiteau,  and  speaks  of  his  considering  assassina- 
tion a  good  act.  Does  Mr.  Lambert  think  that 
consequences  in  that  case  did  not  show  the  act  to 
be  bad,  just  because  the  crazed  politician  tried  to 
justify  himself  by  calling  it  good?  Mr.  Lambert 
forgets  that  Guiteau  was  religious,  and  therefore 
had  the  metewand  of  God;  the  same  one  used  by 
the  Spanish  Inquisitors. 

If  he  did  think  his  act  a  good  one  does  that 


198  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

show  that  people  are  never  to  do  what  they  con- 
sider good  acts  ? 

Mr.  Lambert  suggests  that  if  consequences  de- 
termine it  would  be  necessary  to  find  the  sum  of 
the  consequences,  or,  if  one  consequence  was  to 
be  considered,  which  one,  before  determining  the 
nature  of  the  act 

The  moral  sense  always  tells.  One  knows  if 
he  lies  about  a  person  that  the  consequences  are  bad 
for  at  least  two  persons;  the  one  lied  about  is 
wronged;  the  character  of  the  one  who  lies  is 
lowered.  So  it  is  with  all  faults  and  crimes — the 
consequences  are  always  known  to  be  bad. 

Again  Mr.  Lambert  asks  who  is  to  determine 
the  quality  of  the  consequences?  The  actor  judges, 
but  luckily  there  is  a  pretty  general  agreement  as 
to  what  is  good  or  bad,  tho  some  have  a  better 
capacity  than  others  for  judging  and  for  perform- 
ing. 

Ingersoll.  "If  consequences  are  good,  so  is  the 
action." 

Lambert.  "According  to  this  dictum,  you  cannot 
say  a  cold-blooded  murder  or  an  assassination  is 
good  or  bad  until  you  have  learned  the  consequences 
of  it !  The  consequence  of  Garfield's  taking  off  can 
never  be  known  to  man.  Then,  according  to  your 
philosophy,  it  can  never  be  known  whether  his 
murder  was  a  crime  or  a  virtue !  Are  you  not  afraid 


VIEW   OF   LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

that  your  philosophy  may  put  a  bee  into  the  head 
of  some  religious  fanatic,  who,  misled  by  your 
teachings,  might  consider  his  killing  of  you  a  vir- 
tuous and  holy  act,  foolishly  imagining  that  the 
result  of  it  might,  in  its  consequences,  prove  ben- 
eficial to  society  and  religion?  I,  as  a  Christian, 
condemn  that  act  beforehand,  as  a  crime  deserving 
the  eternal  torments  of  hell;  but  you  cannot  con- 
sistently condemn  it,  because,  according  to  your 
Infidel  theory,  the  act  cannot  be  said  to  be  evil 
or  wicked  till  its  consequences  are  known.  As  the 
consequences  of  your  death  cannot  be  known,  it 
follows  that  your  murder  might  be  a  good  or  a 
bad  act !  This  is  the  result  or  consequence  of  your 
philosophy.  From  a  Christian  point  of  view  it  is 
a  very  bad  consequence,  and  therefore,  if  there  is 
any  virtue  in  logic,  your  philosophy  is  bad.  The 
Christian  holds  not  only  that  murder  is  a  crime, 
but  that  even  the  intention,  determination,  or  un- 
actuated  resolve  is  a  crime,  deserving  of  hell.  It 
is  thus  that  the  Christian  religion  strikes  at  the 
root  of  this  murderous  propensity  in  man,  and 
kills  the  dragon  before  he  issues  from  his  inner- 
most den  in  the  human  heart.  The  doctrine  that 
acts  take  their  nature  and  quality  from  their  re- 
sults is  a  logical  and  necessary  consequence  of  the 
denial  of  God.  It  destroys  individual  responsi- 
bility and  is  subversive  of  all  government  and  social 


2oo  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

order.  It  denies  all  appeal  to  right,  and  destroys 
not  only  justice,  but  the  very  idea  of  it.  It  con- 
templates nothing  but  results — physical,  cognizable 
results." 

Comment.  Are  the  consequences  of  Guiteau's 
crime  not  known?  How  many,  so  far  as  known, 
prove  his  act  a  virtue?  It  is  known  that  Garfield 
was  taken  off  in  his  prime;  his  family  and  friends 
bereft.  The  National  Executive,  elected  by  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  shot  down  by  an  assas- 
sin crazed  by  factional  prejudice  thus  staining  the 
reputation  of  the  Republic.  Were  not  these  con- 
sequences (I  do  not  mean  that  these  are  all) 
enough  to  stigmatize  the  crime  as  hideous  in  the 
view  of  the  whole  world?  The  consequences  to 
Guiteau  were  a  shameful  death,  and  memory  dis- 
graced; to  his  family  and  friends  a  lifelong 
shame  and  sorrow.  All  of  the  consequences 
unalloyed  bitterness. 

No.  Mr.  Ingersoll's  arguments  for  the  right 
against  the  wrong  have  never  led  anyone  to  crime 
and  never  will.  Your  argument  that  the  belief  in 
hell  prevents  crime  does  not  hold  good.  According 
to  my  observation  no  one  has  ever  been  deterred 
from  crime  by  this  belief,  while  we  all  know  of 
great  numbers  of  cases  of  believing  criminals.  The 
belief  as  far  as  I  know  has  never  led  people  to 


VIEW   OF   LAMBERTS    NOTES.  2OI 

crime  without  first  driving  them  insane,  but  there 
have  been  many  instances  of  that  kind. 

The  belief  that  good  consequences  determine 
the  quality  of  an  action  will  never  destroy  individ- 
ual responsibility  nor  prove  subversive  of  govern- 
ment and  social  order,  but  quite  the  contrary.  The 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  might  if  the  belief  in 
it  had  anything  to  do  with  the  conduct  of  the 
life  of  the  believer.  If  it  had  any  effect  it  would 
destroy  individual  responsibility,  and  that  is  at  the 
bottom  of  government  and  social  order. 

Life  soon  teaches  consequences.  Anything  so 
plain  as  murder  is  understood  without  any  really 
conscious  thot.  Other  things,  more  intricate  and 
less  striking,  require  a  finer  conscience  for  their 
comprehension,  and  systems  of  worship  and  belief 
are  not  effectual  educators  of  the  conscience. 

Don't  worry  about  any  religious  fanatic's  being 
led  by  Ingersoll's  teaching  to  kill  him;  that  idea 
is  farfetched  over  a  very  difficult  road.  Religious 
fanatics  hear  of  him  only  thru  their  own  religious 
teachers,  who  hold  up  a  false  picture  of  him  for 
their  scorn  and  contempt.  As  the  picture  is  of  a 
weak  clown  without  any  influence  it  is  not  likely 
their  learners  would  think  him  worth  killing.  Those 
liable  to  be  led  by  him  would  find  themselves  jour- 
neying along  to  a  more  generous  humanity. 

I  have  not  been  thinking  of  him  as  dead;  but  he 


2O2  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

lives  now  in  memory  and  in  the  consequences  of 
his  deeds.  Why  do  not  priests  try  to  destroy  those 
consequences  instead  of  traducing  an  honorable 
character  ? 

-^~l3hysical,  cognizable  results?  But  the  discussion 
is  altogether  from  a  moral  point  of  view  and  can- 
not be  diverted  to  a  physical  aspect. 

That  "it  denies  all  appeal  to  right  and  destroys 
not  only  justice,  but  the  very  idea  of  it"  is  one  of 
the  most  audacious  perversions  I  ever  saw.  Why, 
it  is  appeal  to  right,  and  its  foundation  is  justice.. 

When  religious  dogma  is  not  under  discussion 
I  think  the  rational  idea  that  right  conduct  al- 
ways produces  good  results,  and  wrong  conduct 
always  produces  bad  results  is  accepted  by  all. 

"If  actions  had  no  consequences  they  would  be 
neither  good  nor  bad."  Mr.  Lambert  begins  his 
last  chapter  with  quoting  this  and  setting  up  a 
straw  man,  first  issuing  this  piece  of  jargon: 
"Which  is  the  same  as  saying  if  actions  were  not 
actions  they  would  not  be  actions."  He  says  that 
actions  are  inseparable  from  their  consequences; 
there  can  not  be  an  act  without  consequences.  That 
is  not  opposed  to  anything  Ingersoll  said.  If  Mr. 
Lambert  means  anything  it  must  be  that  he  is  try- 
ing to  make  it  appear  that  Ingersoll  meant  that 
sometimes  actions  were  neither  good  nor  bad,  be- 


VIEW    OF    LAMBERTS    NOTES.  2O3 

cause  they  had  no  consequences ;  but  he  meant  only 
what  he  plainly  stated. 

Mr.  Lambert  declares  again  that  consequences 
cannot  be  known,  and  to  show  how  far-reaching 
they  may  be  illustrates  by  the  often  used  pebble 
thrown  in  a  stream.  After  a  lecture  on  gravita- 
tion, etc.,  he  says:  "A  false  principle  taught  to  a 
child  will  grow  with  it  and  spread  from  it  to 
others,  and  from  these  others  to  yet  others,  and 
thus  on  thru  the  ages,  and  when  time  ceases  it 
will  continue  into  eternity  and  affect  heaven  and 
hell.  Thus  this  one  act  of  a  false  teacher  changes 
the  current  and  harmony  of  the  world." 

I  should  like  to  know  if  these  consequences  are 
not  enough  to  keep  well-disposed  people  to  the 
highest  mark?  Luckily  one  false  teacher  cannot 
have  it  all  his  own  way.  There  are  other  pebbles. 
Let  the  good  teachers  use  their  best  influences.  The 
good  spreads  as  well  as  the  bad. 

I  should  like  to  quote  the  next  two  and  a  half 
pages — they  contain  some  Lambertian  gems — but 
this  division  of  the  subject  has  been  gone  over  be- 
fore, except  that  he  says  man  cannot  learn  what 
is  right  and  wrong  by  experience. 

Ingersoll.  God  or  no  God,  larceny  is  the  enemy 
of  industry — industry  is  the  mother  of  prosperity 
— prosperity  is  a  good,  and  therefore  larceny  is 
an  evil.  God  or  no  God,  murder  is  a  crime.  There 


2O4  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

has  always  been  a  law  against  larceny,  because 
the  laborer  wishes  to  enjoy  the  fruit  of  his  toil. 
As  long  as  men  object  to  being  killed,  murder  will 
be  illegal. 

Lambert.  "To  say  an  act  is  a  larceny  is  to  de- 
termine its  nature — its  quality.  You  have  said  that 
the  quality  of  an  action  is  determined  by  its  con- 
sequences. How  then  can  you  assert  that  any  given 
act  is  a  larceny  till  its  consequences  are  known? 
To  assert  larceny,  you  must  assert  it  of  particular 
acts,  for  larceny  in  the  abstract  is  simply  nothing, 
and  can  have  none  but  abstract  consequences,  which 
are  no  consequences  at  all,  and  therefore  cannot 
be  an  enemy  of  industry,  unless  it  be  industry  in 
the  abstract,  which  again  is  no  industry  at  all.  Lar- 
ceny to  injure  industry,  must  be  larceny  in  act 
and  practice — the  act  of  A,  B  or  C.  But  how 
can  you  assert  that  the  act  of  A,  B,  or  C  is  evil  or 
larcenous  till  its  consequences  are  known?  for,  ac- 
cording to  your  philosophy,  the  nature  of  the  act 
of  A,  B,  or  C  can  be  known  and  judged  only  by 
its  consequences." 

Comment.  How  fortunate  it  is  that  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  was  not  educated  to  argue  this  way  by  the 
day !  He  did  not  take  up  space  in  trivialities — hair- 
splitting to  confuse  his  readers,  trying  to  make 
them  think  black  is  not  black,  because  it  might  be 
faded  into  white.  He  wrote  and  spoke  always  to 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  205 

the  point — to  be  understood,  and  he  was  under- 
stood. 

Larceny  is  the  name  of  the  crime  of  wrongfully 
depriving  a  person  of  his  own  property.  The 
known  consequences  of  the  act  are  what  makes 
the  act  a  crime.  That  is  why  a  penalty  is  imposed 
by  the  civil  power.  The  legal  penalty  incurred  and 
loss  of  reputation  are  some  of  the  consequences 
affecting  the  criminal.  As  for  "larceny  in  the  ab- 
stract" and  "industry  in  the  abstract"  time  might 
be  taken  up  indefinitely  with  such  an  array  of  words 
and  with  such  questions  as,  "What  do  you  mean 
by  justice?"  As  so  much  is  said  about  abstract 
larceny's  being  simply  nothing  and  can  have  no  con- 
sequences, because  the  consequences  are  abstract, 
why,  say  then,  larceny  (in  the  abstract)  is  a  crime 
(in  the  abstract)  and  its  consequence  (in  the  ab- 
stract) is  a  penalty  (in  the  abstract). 

Lambert.  "According  to  your  standard,  prosper- 
ity is  good  only  when  its  consequences  are  good. 
But  the  philosophy  of  history  teaches  that  pros- 
perity leads  to  the  downfall  of  nations  as  well  as 
of  individuals.  What  did  prosperity  do  for  Egypt, 
Greece  and  Rome?  It  made  the  people  luxurious, 
voluptuous  and  imbecile,  and  buried  the  monu- 
ments of  hardier  ages  in  ruins.  It  was  the  siren 
that  led  Hannibal,  Alexander  and  Caesar  to  untime- 
ly graves,  and  Napoleon  to  Moscow  and  Waterloo. 


206  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Prosperity  leads  to  decay,  national,  individual,  in- 
tellectual, moral  and  physical.  When  prosperity 
is  at  its  zenith,  decay  is  at  the  door ;  when  the  tree 
is  in  full  bloom  there  is  but  one  step  to  the  sere 
and  yellow  leaf.  Prosperity  has  evil  consequences, 
and  if,  as  you  say,  consequences  determine  the 
quality  of  actions,  how  can  prosperity  be  good?" 

Comment.  Down  with  prosperity!  Death  to 
the  siren!  Let  us  have  impeding  poverty  and 
groveling  ignorance. 

I  deny  that  any  evil  is  the  consequence  of  pros- 
perity. I  think  other  causes  lead  to  the  undoing 
of  nations  and  people.  The  full  bloom  of  the  tree 
is  the  promise  of  its  fruit;  the  sere  and  yellow 
leaf  announces  the  rest  of  the  forces  which  work 
again  next  year.  When  the  tr^e  dies  it  is  not  be- 
cause of  its  prosperity;  a  stunted  tree  in  poor  soil 
dies  also,  and  the  poverty  of  the  soil  and  other 
unfavorable  conditions  do  not  prolong  its  life. 

Oh!  but  here  is  another  paragraph  introduced 
by  an  impressive  "Again,  Prosperity,  aside  from 
those  who  prosper,  is  an  abstraction,  nothing,  and 
therefore  the  good  you  assert  of  it  is  equally  an 
abstraction,  a  delusion  and  a  snare." 

Do  not  put  prosperity  with  those  who  prosper 
and  no  harm  will  be  done,  for  it  will  remain  an 
intellectual  abstraction. 

About  murder,  he  begins  with  reminding  Inger- 


VIEW   OF  LAMBERT  S    NOTES.  2O/ 

soil  to  not  forget  his  principles,  for  it  is  wrong 
to  say  murder  is  a  crime  when  he  doesn't  know 
the  consequences,  and  proceeds  as  before  about 
murder  in  the  abstract. 

He  says  laws  against  larceny  are  unjust  if  it 
is  a  virtue,  etc.,  as  before. 

Lambert.  "If  there  is  no  God,  the  real  thieves 
are  those  who  have  and  hold  the  goods  of  this 
world  from  those  who  have  not.  This  is  in  fact 
the  doctrine  of  your  Infidel  confreres,  the  commu- 
nists of  France.  Proudhon,  a  prophet  of  Infidelity, 
lays  it  down  as  a  maxim  that  'property  is  robbery.' 
The  difference  between  you  and  Proudhon  is  this: 
He  denies  God  and  carries  that  denial  to  its  logical 
consequences,  while  you,  without  an  atom  of  logic 
in  your  head,  deny  God  and  yet  assert  the  sacred- 
ness  of  property.  If  there  be  no  God,  Proudhon  is 
right;  but  God  or  no  God  you  are  wrong." 

Comment.  We  should  remembei  that  the  debate 
was  on  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible;  that  Inger- 
soll's  argument  was  against  the  Old  Testament 
representations  of  God;  that  he  did  not  deny  nor 
affirm  the  existence  of  God.  Therefore,  it  is  in 
order  to  consider  the  statement,  "If  there  is  no 
God  the  law  against  larceny  has  no  moral  or  bind- 
ing obligation  ("Notes,"  p.  194)  unconnected  with 
any  prejudice  against  Ingersoll  and  see  what  you 
think  of  it.  Do  you  feel  any  "moral  unlift"  about 


2o8  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

which  we  have  lately  heard  so  much,  from  this 
"high  ideal"  presented  by  the  writer  of  the  "Notes"? 

To  show  that  Mr.  Lambert  made  a  bad  use  of 
Proudhon,  calling  him  a  prophet  of  infidelity  in 
trying  to  make  a  point  against  Ingersoll,  I  will 
give  a  short  quotation  from,  What  is  Property?  by 
Proudhon,  page  256:  "His  (man's)  conception  of 
God  and  a  future  life  is  spontaneous  and  instinc- 
tive, and  his  expressions  of  this  conception  have 
been  by  turns  monstrous,  eccentric,  beautiful,  com- 
forting and  terrible.  All  these  different  creeds  at 
which  the  frivolous  irreligion  of  the  eighteenth 
century  mocked,  are  modes  of  expression  of  the 
religious  sentiment.  Some  day  man  will  explain 
to  himself  the  character  of  God  whom  he  believes 
m,  and  the  other  world  to  which  his  soul  aspires." 

Lambert.  "Convicted  murderers  object  to  being 
killed;  is  it  therefore  murder  or  illegal  to  execute 
them?  But  here  again  you  show  a  bad  memory, 
Only  five  lines  above  you  say:  'Consequences  are 
the  standard  by  which  actions  are  judged/  and 
now  you  tell  us  that  the  objection  of  men  to  being 
killed  constituted  the  illegality  of  murder!  Now 
which  of  these  two  statements  do  you  intend  us 
to  believe?  Of  course  we  cannot  believe  them 
both,  because  they  are  contradictory.  This  is  the 
consequence  of  trying  to  reason  without  a  stand- 
ard of  truth  and  morality." 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  209 

Comment.  One  might  suppose  that  this  author 
looked  upon  the  world  as  chiefly  inhabited  by  mur- 
derers ;  that  there  were  no  other  people  worth  men- 
tioning; as  if  laws  were  by  them  and  for  their 
protection — if  his  purpose  were  not  understood  to 
be  to  use  language  for  the  purpose  of  darkening 
instead  of  enlightening. 

Ingersoll's  language  was  perfectly  clear  and  per- 
fectly correct;  and  it  does  not  present  the  least 
contradiction  to  what  he  said  before — that  con- 
sequences determine  the  quality  of  an  action. 

Ingersoll.  "According  to  Mr.  Black  the  man 
who  does  not  believe  in  a  Supreme  Being  acknowl- 
edges no  standard  of  right  and  wrong." 

Lambert.  "You  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  mis- 
represent an  honorable  antagonist.  Mr.  Black  never 
said  that,  nor  anything  like  it,  nor  anything  from 
which  such  an  inference  could  be  drawn.  He  com- 
plained of  the  difficulty  of  arguing  with  a  man  like 
you,  who  had  no  acknowledged  standard  of  right 
and  wrong.  That  his  complaint  was  just  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  in  your  reply  to  him  you  give 
half  a  dozen  different  standards,  and  all  contradic- 
tory, as  we  have  just  seen." 

Comment.  It  has  already  been  shown  by  quo- 
tation from  Mr.  Black  that  he  did  say  it,  and  Mr. 
Lambert  repeats  it,  showing  that  he  understood  the 


2io  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

argument,  tho  he  charged  misrepresentation  be- 
fore. 

I  have  not  seen  the  half  a  dozen  different  stand- 
ards of  right  and  wrong,  all  contradictory,  which 
Mr.  Lambert  says  we  have  just  seen.  Have  you, 
Reader?  Please  look  for  them,  and  "when  found 
make  a  note  o't." 

Ingersoll.  "Is  it  possible  that  only  those  who 
believe  in  the  God  who  persecuted  for  opinion's 
sake  have  any  standard  of  right  and  wrong?" 

Lambert.  "Only  those  who  believe  in  the  true 
God,  whom  you  falsely  accuse  of  persecuting,  can 
have  the  true  standard  of  right  and  wrong.  That 
those  who  do  not  believe  in  him  may  have  some 
standard  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  you  have 
laid  down  half  a  dozen  standards,  such  as  they  are ; 
and  no  doubt  you  could  give  more  if  the  exigencies 
of  your  argument  required  it.  But  when  Mr.  Black 
spoke  of  a  standard  he  did  not  mean  India  rubber 
strings.  Every  man  has,  or  ought  to  have,  some 
one  standard  by  which  to  regulate  his  conscience 
and  his  acts,  but  you  have  half  a  dozen  worthless 
ones ;  hence  the  difficulty  of  knowing  where  to  find 
you.  Mr.  Black's  complaint  is  that  you  have  no 
standard  that  holds  you,  or  that  prevents  you  from 
acting  like  the  little  joker  in  the  game  of  thimble 
— now  you  see  it,  and  now  you  don't." 


VIEW  of  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

Ingersoll.  "Were  the  greatest  men  of  antiquity 
without  this  standard?" 

Lambert.  "Which  standard?  Do  you  refer  to 
the  true  standard,  or  to  some  standard?  These 
great  men  had  a  standard — the  will  of  the  gods. 
They  thus  recognized  a  very  important  truth ;  name- 
ly, that  the  standard  of  morals  should  be  a  will 
superior  to  the  human  will.  They  erred  in  locating 
this  superior  or  supreme  will,  but  they  recognized 
its  necessity  somewhere.  In  doing  this  these  great 
men  paid  a  magnificent  tribute  to  the  true  God 
and  to  human  reason.  These  great  men  whose 
genius  the  world  honors  were  too  great  to  be  Athe- 
ists. They  believed  in  the  existence  of  God,  and 
failed  only  to  identify  him  and  understand  his  na- 
ture. They  honored  the  true  God,  when  by  mis- 
take they  accepted  the  false  one,  as  you  would 
honor  a  genuine  United  States  bond  by  accepting 
a  counterfeit  thro  ignorance.  They  had,  then,  a 
standard  of  right  and  wrong,  and  altho  it  was 
not  the  true  one,  yet  they  were  consistent  and  held 
themselves  amenable  to  it  in  their  lives  and  in 
their  logic.  Their  philosophy  and  theology  began 
where  yours  end.  It  is  your  misfortune  that  you 
never  studied  them  profoundly,  as  they  deserve  to 
be  studied,  for  they  were  giants,  these  men  of 
old." 

Comment.    What  has  become  of  Mr.  Lambert's 


212  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

yardstick?  He  had  it  when  he  began,  but  dropped 
it  out  of  sight  while  he  was  comparing  Ingersoll 
to  the  little  joker — "now  you  see  it,  and  now  you 
don't."  (He  knew  what  game  he  was  playing,  and 
knew  Ingersoll  was  not  present.)  Here  he  contents 
himself  with  any  standard — even  that  of  the  will 
of  the  gods.  Does  he  admit  more  than  one  stand- 
ard for  those  who  accept  many  gods,  or  can  he  im- 
agine a  composite  of  Bacchus,  Juno,  Jove,  Mars, 
Ceres,  etc.?  [The  lady  gods  go  with  the  others.] 
No;  that  would  be  impossible,  for  then  there  would 
no  longer  be  gods,  but  one  god.  Remembering 
what  he  said  about  the  treason  of  worshiping  other 
gods  than  Jehovah  it  looks  to  me  as  if  he  were 
giving  aid  and  comfort  in  large  quantities  to  trai- 
tors, and  the  penalty  is  death.  He  picks  up  his 
yardstick  again  and  informs  us  those  great  man 
had  his  God,  but  didn't  know  him;  but  again  loses 
it  when  he  comes  to  the  very  strange  idea  (for 
him)  that  they  honor  the  true  God  by  worshiping 
a  false  one  by  mistake,  and  still  keeps  it  out  of 
sight  while  he  goes  on  to  the  effect  that  tho  the 
great  men's  yardstick  was  not  the  true  one,  they 
stuck  to  it  anyhow,  and  were  giants  whose  ac- 
quaintance Ingersoll,  unfortunately  for  him,  did 
not  make. 

Ingersoll.     "In  the  eyes  of  the  intelligent  men 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  213 

of  Greece  and  Rome,  were  all  deeds,  whether  good 
or  evil  morally  alike?" 

Lambert.  "No,  sir.  As  we  have  seen  they  had 
a  standard — the  will  of  the  gods — and  therefore 
all  deeds  were  not,  in  their  eyes,  morally  alike. 
Their  standard,  not  being  a  true  one,  did  not  en- 
able them  to  correctly  distinguish  right  and  wrong. 
In  this  their  standard  was  superior  to  any  you 
have  advanced;  for  your  denial  of  God  destroys 
all  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  and  leaves 
the  words  crime  and  virtue  without  a  meaning." 

Comment.  In  short,  Greeks,  Romans,  and  In- 
gersolls  do  not  any  of  them  know  any  difference 
between  right  and  wrong;  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
being  incapacitated  by  having  too  many  gods,  and 
Ingersoll  by  not  having  enough.  A  large  number 
of  false  gods  are  preferable  to  no  god.  Mr.  Lam- 
bert does  not  appear  to  use  his  yardstick  any  more ; 
just  above  he  thot  the  false  gods  could  be  made 
to  cover  the  deficiency  if  people  kept  a  tight  hold 
on  them;  but  now  he  thinks  they  are  inadequate 
tho  they  do  show  those  who  worship  them  that 
there  is  a  right  and  wrong.  It  does  not  seem  as 
if  it  would  be  of  any  use  to  know  there  are  such 
things  if  you  can't  tell  them  apart,  and  this  Mr. 
Lambert  tells  us  they  cannot  do.  If  they  cannot 
distinguish  right  from  wrong,  they  would  be  just 
as  likely  to  choose  one  as  the  other;  it  would  all 


214  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

depend  on  chance.  I  don"t  see  why  he  thinks  In- 
gersoll  has  not  the  same  chance.  What  follows 
does  not  shed  any  light  on  the  subject.  It  is  in- 
troduced only  for  the  sake  of  euphony,  but  I  want 
you  to  see  it. 

Lambert.  "These  men  of  Greece  and  Rome  were 
not  so  stupid  as  to  believe  your  theory  that  con- 
sequences determine  the  nature  of  actions.  They 
never  stole  the  truths,  beauties  and  magnificent  re- 
sults of  the  Christian  religion  and  tried  to  make 
believe  they  were  the  fruits  of  Paganism,  as  mod- 
ern Infidels  try  to  make  it  appear  that  those  mag- 
nificent results  are  the  fruits  of  reason  and  experi- 
ence. These  intelligent  men  of  Greece  and  Rome 
had  their  faults,  but  they  were  not  given  to  that 
kind  of  lying." 

Comment.  Let  us  have  an  extract  from  Epictetus 
to  take  away  the  bad  taste:  "Mind,  knowledge, 
right  reason — here  seek  the  essence  of  goodness." 

Civilization  is  claimed  as  the  result  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  that  claim  is  not  sustained  by  history. 
Christians  now  often  speak  of  morality  as  religion 
and  many  accept  it  as  such  on  account  of  the  label. 
The  power  of  wealth  and  social  and  political  in- 
fluence in  the  churches  enables  them  to  keep  up  a 
certain  sentiment  of  refinement  which  does  not  be- 
long to  bare  religion  itself.  Many  people  forget 
that  it  is  a  system  of  belief  and  worship;  and  that 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  215 

its  organization  is  kept  up  at  great  expense  for 
the  perpetuation  of  that  belief  and  worship.  Many 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  it  does  not  stand  on  its 
own  merits.  It  is  the  habit  of  the  masses  to  con- 
sent to  an  established  custom,  and  defer  to  a  power- 
ful organization.  The  church  has  the  advantage 
of  the  support  of  the  State  in  many  ways.  This 
means,  of  course,  the  people  are  compelled  to  help 
support  it  by  means  of  taxation.  The  State  will 
do  this  as  long  as  the  church  demands  it,  and  the* 
people  make  no  organized  or  general  objection  felt 
by  politicians.  It  is  astonishing  to  hear  the  sup- 
porters of  the  church  argue  that  Christianity  could 
not  stand  if  left  to  the  voluntary  support  of  its  ad- 
herents. This  is  admitting  much  more  than  In- 
fidels could  expect  from  any  taxation  reform. 

Ingersoll.  "Is  it  necessary  to  believe  in  the  ex- 
istence of  an  infinite  intelligence,  before  you  have 
any  standard  of  right  and  wrong?" 

Lambert.  "Yes.  Deny  the  infinite  intelligence 
or  God,  and  all  deeds  are  morally  alike;  there  is 
no  right,  no  wrong,  and  of  course  no  distinction 
between  them."  (He  keeps  the  yardstick  where 
he  can  use  it  or  not,  as  he  pleases.)  "Where  there 
is  no  right  nor  wrong,  there  can  be  no  standard 
of  right  and  wrong.  Where  there  is  no  standard 
there  cannot  be  any  standard."  (This  gem  is  worth 
keeping.  How  much  longer  does  it  take  to  get  up 


216  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

sentences  like  these  than  when  there  are  ideas  in 
them?)  "It  will  not  do  to  say  that  Christians 
admit  a  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  for 
they  do  not  admit  it,  if  there  is  no  God;  on  the 
contrary,  they  deny  it."  (There  is  an  idea,  tho 
it  is  a  queer  one.) 

Ingersoll.  "Is  it  possible  that  a  being  cannot  be 
just  and  virtuous  unless  he  believes  in  some  being 
infinitely  superior  to  himself?  If  this  doctrine  be 
t.rue,  how  can  God  be  just  and  virtuous?  Does  he 
Relieve  in  some  being  infinitely  superior  to  him- 
self?" 

Mr.  Lambert  cuts  these  three  sentences  apart, 
denies  the  first  one;  calls  it  a  trick;  says  every 
finite  being  must  believe,  etc.;  answers  the  others 
as  if  they  were  made  ridiculous  by  his  answer  to 
the  first  one;  says  to  the  second  that  it  supposes 
Ingersoll  had  caught  a  gudgeon;  reproaches  him 
for  an  unworthy  play  upon  words,  and  says:  "God 
is  just  because  he  is  justice;  and  justice  and  virtue 
are  justice  and  virtue  because  He  is,  and  without 
Him,  there  is  neither  justice  and  virtue,  nor  any- 
thing else.  I  merely  indicate  here  Christian  prin- 
ciples; to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  their  meta- 
physical basis  with  you  would  be  to  degrade  a 
magnificent  science,  of  which  you  manifest  an 
ignorance  which  is  only  commensurate  with  your 
brazen  egotism."  He  answers  the  third  question, 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  217 

"It  is  not  at  all  necessary.  After  the  trickery  of 
your  former  question  there  is  not  timber  enough 
in  this  last  one  to  nail  an  answer  to." 

Comment.  Separating  the  sentences  does  some- 
what interfere  with  the  clearness  of  the  logical  ef- 
fect, and  commenting  on  the  first  one  in  the  way 
he  did  gave  him  the  chance  of  making  it  appear 
to  careless  readers  in  his  comments  on  the  other 
sentences  as  if  he  had  answered  the  first,  tho  he 
did  not.  He  merely  excepts  God  from  the  rule 
without  showing  any  reason  for  the  exception. 
Saying  God  is  infinite  is  not  a  reason.  Then  he 
builds  his  argument  in  the  answers  to  the  other 
sentences  on  the  false  assumption  that  he  had  an- 
swered the  first  one. 

When  trying  to  hide  the  fact  that  he  cannot 
answer  he  often  insists  on  definitions.  There  would 
be  some  reason  in  asking  him  what  he  means  by 
"play  upon  words,"  he  uses  the  phrase  so  much 
at  random.  Ingersoll's  second  question  follows  the 
preceding  one  naturally  leading  to  the  conclusion 
of  the  argument,  and  nothing  like  a  play  upon 
words  appears. 

Ingersoll.  "If  there  is  a  God,  infinite  in  power 
and  wisdom,  above  him,  poised  in  eternal  calm, 
is  the  figure  of  Justice." 

Lambert.  In  answer  to  this  he  tells  Mr.  Inger- 
soll that  it  is  not  pleasant  to  talk  to  him;  that  he 


2l8  VIEW   OF    LAMBERT'S    NOTES. 

has  no  idea  of  God;  he  is  "too  intellectually  blind 
to  see  that  to  place  an  abstraction  called  justice 
above  God  is  to  destroy  God."  [Abstraction  has 
been  drawn  so  often  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lambert 
is  nearly  driven  to  distraction.  Let  the  pile  of 
words  be  turned  over  and  shaken  up.]  "Justice 
has  no  existence  of  its  own,  aside  from  that  which 
is  just,  justice  is  a  pure  abstraction."  He  says  jus- 
tice to  exist  must  exist  as  a  quality,  or  mode  or 
form  of  something;  it  can't  live  by  itself. 

Comment.  The  writer  of  the  "Notes"  seems  to  be 
in  a  position  similar  to  that  in  which  he  imagines 
the  Pagan  philosophers  regarding  right  and  wrong. 
He  knows  there  is  such  a  thing  as  Justice,  but 
does  not  know  it  when  he  sees  it.  Not  going  into 
enumerations  of  the  different  ways  in  which  the 
word  can  come  in  different  subjects,  nor  analysis 
of  subjects  in  which  the  word  occurs,  nor  giving 
all  the  definitions,  I  should  say  Justice  is  a  quality ; 
it  does  not  exist  as  a  quality  in  the  sense  of  ap- 
pearing as  something  else.  If  I  were  a  Pagan  I 
might  say,  Justice,  oh  beautiful  Goddess!  keep  my 
life  pure!  Do  not  allow  me  to  contract  the  dis- 
ease of  the  false  witness,  or  a  tergiversator  while 
reviewing  the  book  of  a  finite  mortal!  O  sweet 
Goddess!  I  fear  I  am  not  immune  to  the  sin  of 
trifling.  Help  thou  me ! 

Ingersoll  wrote   for  the  purpose  of  expressing 


VIEW    OF   LAMBERT  S    NOTES. 

ideas,  and  knew  everyone  would  know  what  he 
meant  by  Justice. 

Ingersoll.  "There  is  no  world,  no  star,  no  heav- 
en, no  hell,  in  which  gratitude  is  not  a  virtue,  and 
where  slavery  is  not  a  crime." 

Mr.  Lambert  admonishes  Ingersoll  to  confine 
himself  to  this  world ;  says  he  is  going  to  hold  him 
to  his  standard  of  right  and  wrong;  as  long  as  he 
is  "bound  by  that  standard,  your  talk  about  virtue 
and  crime  is  unmitigated  hypocrisy;  for  until  the 
consequences  of  acts  are  known,  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  virtue  and  crime." 

Comment.  So  much  iteration  will  put  readers  to 
sleep.  This  must  be  hurried  on  to  the  end  as  fast 
as  possible. 

Ingersoll.  "I  have  insisted,  and  I  still  insist, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  a  finite  man  to  commit  a 
crime  deserving  infinite  punishment." 

Lambert.  "A  little  more  reason  and  a  little  less 
assertion  would  be  more  becoming  in  a  philoso- 
pher." 

Comment.  I  do  not  know  why  he  begins  in  this 
blustering  way,  for  he  goes  on  with  a  copious  flow 
of  words  to  point  out  that  Christians  all  agree 
with  Ingersoll.  But  down  the  page  he  remarks, 
"But  you  had  a  purpose  and  a  meaning  in  your 
statement."  [How  strange  that  one  should  write 
with  purpose  and  meaning!] 


22o  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

With  a  great  show  of  asperity  he  charges  In- 
gersoll  with  juggling  words  to  bring  in  another 
very  different  idea.  It  turns  out  that  Ingersoll  has 
done  a  very  shocking  thing.  He  said  infinite  when 
he  should  have  said  everlasting  punishment.  [Let 
Mr.  Lambert  have  everlasting  punishment,  by  all 
means,  if  he  prefers  it.] 

He  says  because  Ingersoll  said  infinite  his 
"whole  argument  on  this  point  collapses  like  a 
punctured  balloon."  He  repeats,  man  is  capable 
of  receiving  everlasting,  but  not  infinite  punish- 
ment. 

Ingersoll.  "Of  the  supernatural  we  have  no  con- 
ception." 

Lambert.  Then  how  can  you  say  anything  about 
it?  To  admit  this  after  writing  your  article  "is 
to  advertise  yourself  a  thotless  gabbler."  In  his 
usual  prolix  style  he  argues  that  no  one  can  think 
or  talk  of  that  of  which  he  has  no  conception, 
and  so  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  said  wonderful 
and  curious  things  in  his  argument  with  Mr. 
Black. 

Comment.  We  may  think  and  talk  on  the  super- 
natural even  if  we  do  not  believe  in  it.  Mr.  Lam- 
bert may  have  no  conception  of  Ingersoll's  creed 
of  science,  but  may  express  his  ideas  about  it. 

Ingersoll,    "Mr.  Black  takes  the  ground  that  if 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  221 

a  man  believes  in  the  creation  of  the  universe  .  .  . 
he  has  no  right  to  deny  anything." 

Lambert.  "This  is  mere  trifling,  and  shows  what 
an  Infidel  philosopher  is  capable  of  when  put  to 
the  stretch.  There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  what 
you  say,  and  you  knew  it  when  you  said  it.  Mr. 
Black  takes  no  such  ground  as  you,  in  utter  dis- 
regard of  the  obligations  of  veracity,  attributed  to 
him." 

Comment.  Mr.  Ingersoll  did  not  give  a  direct 
quotation.  He  gave  the  substance  of  the  same 
thing.  You  may  find  it  on  pages  56-57  of  the  In- 
gersoll-Black  debate. 

Ingersoll.  "We  should  remember  that  ignorance 
is  the  mother  of  credulity;  that  the  early  Chris- 
tians believed  everything  but  the  truth,  and  that 
they  accepted  Paganism,  admitted  the  reality  of 
all  the  Pagan  miracles — taking  the  ground  that 
they  were  all  forerunners  of  their  own.  Pagan 
miracles  were  never  denied  by  the  Christian  world 
till  late  in  the  seventeenth  century.  Voltaire  was 
the  third  man  of  note  in  Europe  who  denied  the 
truth  of  Greek  and  Roman  mythology.  "The  early 
Christians  cited  Pagan  oracles  predicting  in  detail 
the  sufferings  of  Christ.  They  forged  prophecies, 
and  attributed  them  to  heathen  sibyls,  and  they 
were  accepted  as  genuine  by  the  entire  church.' " 
[Taking  part  of  the  first  sentence  of  this  para- 


222  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

graph,  "We  should  remember  .  .  .  that  the  early 
Christians  believed  everything  but  the  truth,  and 
that  they  accepted  Paganism,  admitted  the  real- 
ity of  the  Pagan  miracles,"  for  his  text,  Mr.  Lam- 
bert concludes  the  "Notes"  thus] 

Lambert.  "In  making  and  printing  this  state- 
ment you  lose  all  claim  to  respectful  consideration. 
We  must  brand  it  in  the  whole  and  in  all  its  parts 
as  a  falsehood,  and  he  who  made  it  is  ignorant 
or  malicious  or  both.  And  yet  this  falsifier  talks 
glibly  of  'honesty'  and  'honor  bright' !  We  charge 
Mr.  Ingersoll  with  falsehood  in  making  the  above 
statement.  We  call  on  him  to  verify  it,  or  stand 
as  a  convicted  falsifier.  A  falsifier  cannot  be 
trusted;  his  glib  talk  of  honesty  and  virtue  must 
be  looked  upon  as  a  snare,  like  that  of  the  profli- 
gate who  talks  of  virtue  to  his  intended  victim. 
We  can  respect  an  enemy,  but  when  we  find  deceit 
and  falsehood  in  his  methods,  we  relegate  him  to 
that  disreputable  class  which  affords  remunera- 
tive employment  to  detectives  and  policemen.  A 
falsifier  is  a  manufacturer  of  base  coin,  a  counter- 
feiter, a  fraud. 

"We  here  conclude  these  notes,  believing  we  have 
accomplished  what  we  undertook  to  do.  We  have 
said  enough  to  convince  our  readers  that  Mr.  In- 
gersoll is  profligate  of  statement;  that  he  is  not 
to  be  trusted;  that  he  is  unscrupulous;  that  as  a 


VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES.  223 

logican  and  metaphysician  he  is  beneath  contempt; 
that  he  is  a  mere  galvanizer  of  oltl  objections  long 
ago  refuted;  that  he  is  ignorant  and  superficial — 
full  of  gas  and  gush ;  in  a  word,  that  he  is  a  char- 
latan of  the  first  water,  who  mistakes  curious  lis- 
teners for  disciples  and  applause  for  approval. 

"Of  course  we  do  not  expect  him  to  reply  to 
us,  and  for  several  reasons.  First,  he  will  not 
want  to;  second,  he  cannot;  third,  he  can  pretend 
not  to  notice  an  obscure  country  pastor.  Very 
well.  Then  let  some  of  his  disciples  or  admirers 
try  to  rehabilitate  his  smirched  character.  We  hold 
ourselves  responsible  to  him,  and  to  all  the  glib 
little  whiffets  of  his  shallow  school." 

Comment.  Anyone  who  has  read  the  other  pages 
of  this  attempt  to  correct  Lambert's  presentation 
of  Ingersoll,  will  see  that  it  is  not  necessary  to 
use  any  more  time  on  these  pages.  He  presents 
the  usual  charges  of  "deceit,"  "falsehood"  and 
"glib  talk"  which  have  been  exposed  before. 

This  view  has  been  very  imperfectly  presented. 
It  is  impossible  for  me  to  place  the  author  of  the 
"Notes"  and  the  subject  of  his  criticism  before  you 
as  plain  as  I  hoped  to  make  them,  because  I  have 
not  been  able  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  a  dialog 
between  Ingersoll  and  Lambert,  which  is  occasion- 
ally interrupted  by  my  comments.  But  a  dialog 
of  this  kind  could  never  have  taken  place.  Please 


224  VIEW  OF  LAMBERT'S  NOTES. 

remember  that  Mr.  Lambert  selected  sentences  and 
parts  of  sentences  as  he  pleased,  put  them  where  he 
pleased,  and  put  on  them  any  construction  he 
pleased.  Ingersoll  neither  heard  him  nor  answered 
him,  and  he  did  not  answer  Ingersoll ;  he  only  tried 
to  make  people  think  he  scorned  him. 

Altho  Ingersoll  did  not  notice  Mr.  Lambert,  we 
have  in  book  form  his  debates  with  Mr.  Gladstone, 
Judge  Black,  Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  and  the  great 
controversy  which  followed  the  famous  Christmas 
sermon. 


INDEX. 

PAGES 

Abuse  of  reason  172 

Abolitionists    72,  75 

Abdication  of  God  156 

"According  to  my  idea"    n 

Admission  of  Mr.  Black  101 

Aggressions    189 

Analyzing    83 

Anecdote  of  Ingersoll's    161 

Anti-slavery   a    Christian   thot    115 

Appeal  to  reason,  Extraordinary   183 

Apostles     126 

Argument  is  tried  by  Mr.  Lambert  172 

Ascensions  of  Jesus    140 

Assertion    43 

Assurance,   Infidel    126 

Atonement    175,  182 

Authenticity  of  Bible   117 

Gospels     128 

Black  and  design  argument  28 

Black    and    statement     made     by 

Evangelists    141 

Book  of  Wisdom  ' 53 

Brownson's   Quarterly   Review    . .  43 
Buncombe        about       questioning 

honesty  and  virtue    129 

Charge  of  audacity    7 

absolutely  false  statements   146 

advertising  himself  a  thotless  gabbler  . .  220 

affecting  to  believe,  &c 67 

a  fellow-feeling  with  sorcerers,  &c  S3 

almost  indefinite  self-assertive  capacity.  36 
assuming       to       determine       what       is 

monstrous,    miraculous,    &c in 

assurance    126 

avoidance  of  the  issue   39 

of     a     question     by     missta- 
ting it  40 


228  INDEX 

PAGES 

Charge  of  baseless  assertions  and  appeal  to  igno- 
rance    53 

being  dishonest    7 

a  fool   7 

a  monumental  bore   52 

too  narrow  and  local   15 

a  blatant  blasphemer 147 

too  general  and  indefinite    100 

a   convicted   falsifier    222 

beneath  contempt   223 

a   simian   philosopher    54 

ignorant   and   dishonest    156 

belittling  Jesus   by  denying  miracles    . .  130 
beslavering  sorcerers,    &c.,    with    gush- 
ing   sympathy    53 

that  Black  was  not  allowed  to  answer 6,  44,  82 

of  being  an  incompetent  interpreter  of  na- 
ture      15 

blasphemous    jests    66 

blasphemy  for  dollars  147 

blundering     in     confounding     logic     and 

reasoning 43 

blundering  and  failure  to  understand  ....  114 
bringing  in  design  argument  when   Black 

did    not    28 

brazen    egotism    216 

calling   for   proof  that    evidence   did   not 

exist    131 

cant  about  freedom  of  thot 61 

challenging  to  mortal   combat    107 

change   of   doctrine    164 

changing  words  to  introduce  false  ideas  . .  139 

charlatancy  of  the  first  water 223 

claltter ,7 

confounding  law  and    force    intentionally 

or  thru   ignorance    16 

confounding   true   with   complete   or   ade- 
quate     -..  163 

continuing  the  work  of  Judas   179 

consummate  hypocrisy    85 


INDEX  229 

PAGES 

Charge  of  criminality    222 

cunning    29,  160 

cunning   assumption    47 

deceit  and  falsehood   222 

deceit  and  sophistry    113 

defence  of  treason   58 

defective  phrenal   development    169 

denial  of  right  of  others  to  express  thot  . .  25 

different    standards    210 

dishonest  use  of  improper  adjections   ....  163 

dishonesty   and   demagogy    170 

dodging    48 

double   meaning    139 

exhausting    lachrymal    glands    on     guilty 

wretches  and  law  breakers  113 

fallacy     61,  186 

false    accusations    210 

false,  foolish  and  reckless  statements 156 

flippancy  and  verbal  flummery   150 

forcing  himself  to  the  front  and  confusing 

investigation    167 

fraud     107 

galvanizing  old   objections    223 

gas  and  gush  223 

giving  an  impression  dishonestly  46 

glib    talk    162,  222 

that    great  and  learned  theologians  do  not  care 

to  meet  him  146 

of  idiocy     7 

ignorance    44,  167,  216 

and  brazen  egotism  216 

and   garrulous   talk    167 

and    dishonesty    156 

ignorance  and   superficiality    223 

ignorance  and  malice   222 

of   metaphysics    216 

ignoring  other  parts  of  argument  121 

ignorant    blundering    152 

and  malicious  falsehood  222 

impertinence    131 

imposing  on  readers   4& 


230  INDEX 

PAGES 

Charge  of  Infidel  brass  135 

infinite  self-asserting  capacity   36 

intellectual  staphyloma   36 

blindness    218 

imbecility  85 

interpolation     146 

juggling  words    220 

lacking  breadth  and  comprehensiveness   . .  15 
low    trickery,    deceit,    flattery    of    popular 

passions  and  errors   107 

low  and  venomous  epithets  108 

loquacity    26 

and  demagogy   170 

lugubrious  cant   70 

lying 7,  82,  107,  146(2),  154(3),  214,  221,  222 

many  bad  methods    160 

,               mawkish    sentimentality    60 

meaningless    verbiage    43 

metaphysical   sky-rocketing   29 

misinterpreting  nature 15 

misrepresentation      72,  78,  79,  80,  82,  101,  105, 

106,  107,  112,  119,  123,  146,  191,  209 

misrepresentation,  puttying  and  patching  .  107 

miserable    failure    154 

misunderstanding       and       misinterpreting 

Moses  and  revealed  religion 15 

narrowness,    &c 15 

noticing  one  part  and  ignoring  the  other  . .  121 

offering  crude   notions    in 

by  Patrick  Cronin  in  strings  of  epithets 121 

•of  petty   chicanery 103 

placing  too  much   reliance  on  saying  and 

placing  too  little  on  proving   160 

pitiable  begging  of  the  whole  question 47 

plagiarism     n 

playing    counsel   and   judge   at   the    same 

time     ill 

playing  upon  words   217 

presuming  to  criticize,  &c 15 

pretence  of  being  a  philosopher 147 

profligacy  of  statement   222 


INDEX    ,           »  231 
k                                  PAGES 

Change  of  purpose  and  meaning 219 

Charge  of  ribaldry  7 

sacrificing  dignity  and  veracity  156 

self-contradiction  47,  143 

sentimental  gush  80 

shameless  misrepresentation  of  history  ...  53 

showing  his  ears  49 

silly  trash  as  arguments  143 

softest  and  silliest  kind  of  gush 61 

soft,  indefinite  generalities  189 

sophistry  and  double  meaning  139 

speculation  and  turning  falsehood  into 

dollars  107 

standards  of  right  and  wrong,  Having 

no  209 

standards  of  right  and  wrong,  Having 

half  a  dozen  209,  210 

suppression  of  explanation  of  command  . .  49 
taking  fling  at  theologians  over  Black's 

ishoulders 107 

taking  dishonest  advantage  of  ignorant  ad- 
mirers    142 

torturing  the  truth  out  of  shape 40 

travestry  of  the  gospels  148 

trickery 2,10,  216,)  247 

trifling  221 

trying  to  reason  without  a  standing  of 

truth  and  morality  208 

trotting  out  infants 67 

turning  falsehood  into  dollars  107 

twisting  arguments  out  of  shape 121 

uncandor  107 

unfairness  to  antagonist  107 

unmitigated  hypocrisy  219 

unreliability  15 

unscrupulousness  222 

untrustworthy  definitions  85 

unworthy  play  upon  words  216 

use  of  words  with  a  purpose  22 

use  of  the  word  vacuum  in  gross  material 

sense    .  20 


232  INDEX 

PAGES 

Charge  of  verbal  thimble-rigging  41 

varnishing  and  revamping  old  objections  .  150 

whining  and  whimpering  108 

whimpering    -107 

wordspinning    and   gush    170 

wounding    and    lacerating    7 

wagging   tongue   against    Christianity    for 

dollars     147 

Christian    belief    169 

Christianity   and   common   sense    69-70 

Coarseness,  Extreme   53 

Code    of   Moses 9 

Commandments    , 48 

Confounding  judgment  and  deduction  14 

Conscience  and  perception   191 

Conscience  and  definition  of  196,  197 

Consequents 198 

Created  or  self -existent  universe  18 

Creative    act    31 

Crime  the  result  of  liberty  34 

Defence  of  the  civil  war  73 

Definitions    49,  84,  87,  90,  104,  196,  222 

Denial  that   Matthew,   Mark   and   Luke  gave  the 

last  words  of  Jesus    146 

Denial  that  last  words  were  reported   154 

of  lying  spirits    54 

the  ascensions  testimony   148 

the  right  to  express  thot  24 

Black's   saying  God   established   slavery 

in  Judea   114 

Black's   saying   the    anti-slavery    move- 
ment began  only  forty  years  ago   115 

that  Black  thot  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments harmonious    (see   117)  112 

that  Black  said  rapid  rise  of   Christianity 

proved  its   divine  character    119 

that  anyone  held  above  position  119 

Design   argument    28 

Design    in    suffering    > 32 

Difference  and  contradictions  in  gospels    160 

Disciples    135 


INDEX  233 

PAGES 

Disciples  of  liberty  and  license    61 

Disagreement  of  genealogies,  old  objection 149 

Disagreement  of  genealogies,  new  objection 152 

Doctrine   of   gospels    154 

Doing  as  your  enemies  did   66-67 

Epictetus     214 

Estimates  of  other  rationalist  authors 7,  168 

Eternal   act    19 

Eternity  of  the  universe   n 

Eusebius    138 

Evasion 100,  137,  171  (2),  177,  188,  219 

Everlasting    punishment     220 

Ex-parte   philosophy    81 

Expressed   in  words    16 

Facts  legal  tender  39,  43,  45 

Facts  of  our  being  164 

Fellow  feeling  makes  us  wondrous  kind 53 

Fenelon    -* 134 

Finite    and    infinite     39 

Fisher's  article  in  North  American  Review   6 

Forces  and  laws  of  nature  16 

Founders   of   Christianity    123 

Free  will  and  liberty   91 

Gabbling  like  an  idiot   25 

Gathering   an    idea 13 

Genealogies  of  Jesus   149 

Generations,  Two  measurings  of   150 

Gospels,    Contradiction    of    160 

Guiteau    25,  89,  127,  197,  198 

Harmony  with  your  surroundings 166 

Hooker     134 

Idiots   and    philosophers    174 

"If  actions  were  not  actions"  202 

Implications  of  damnation  of  philosophers 174 

Infants     67 

Infidels  charged  with  being  dishonest  or  fools 169 

Infinite,  Explanation  of  the    -.•••* I2 

Ingersoll  compared  to  end  man  in  minstrel  show  . .  183 

Insinuation   that  Ingersoll  lies    55,  141,  154 

is    a    sharper    of    the 

meanest  order 107 


234  INDEX 

PAGES 

Insinuation  that    Ingersoll   is  a  clown 68 

lies,  misrepresents  and 

blasphemes    83 

has      instincts      of      a 

slave    85 

should  have  his  ears 
boxed,  if  boxes  large 
enough  could  be 

found    127 

is  too  smart  143 

stole  truths,  &c. ;  tried 

to  make  believe,  &c  .  214 
is   descendant   of  false 

prophets     54 

of  jokes,  lies,  sophistry  and  cunning  . .  161 

that  Ingersoll  is  worse  than  Judas   . .  178 

boasted  of  crime  178 

is    egotistic    33 

is   insane 36 

is    criminal    222 

Inspiration    162 

Insults,  A  few  of  the 7,  52,  58,  23,  64, 68,  81,  154, 162 

187,  191,  216,  222 (many),  223 

Josephus     138 

Judas 175 

Judging  and  thinking   40 

Jurisdiction  or  capacity,   Neither   38 

Justice     185 

Justification  of  polygamy    192 

Knowledge  of  human  nature   49 

Lacy's  answer  to  Lambert  6 

Lambert  jokes 29,  45,  51,  61,  62,  67,  68(2),  127,  131 

151,  169 

Larceny    203 

Last  words  of  Jesus   144 

Last  words  of  Jesus  on  the  cross  154 

Law  and  force    13 

Lazarus    136 

Lecturers    33,  54,  178,  183 

Lecture   bureaus 179 

Liberty    89 


INDEX  235 

PAGES 

Liberty,  crime  the  result  of , 34 

of  conscience   59 

and  free  will    54 

according  to  Lambert 86,  91,  92,  99 

Lunatics  best  reasoners    24 

Lunatics,  fools  and  philosophers   90 

Lying  spirits  54 

Man's    destiny     34 

Men,  good,  bad  and  mistaken   123 

Metaphysics,  Question  of 183 

Metewand    of    God    73,  76,  78 

of  Greeks  and  Romans  211 

Middle  course  between  idiocy  and  philosophy 174 

Mind    and    reason    47 

Mind,  The  human   66 

Minstrel  show,  New  idea  of 157,  183 

Miracles    130 

Lacy   132 

facts    130 

Misrepresentation    of    Ingersoll    46,81,  164,  190 

Mistaken,  honestly  and  dishonestly   125 

Murder  of  millions   53 

Murderers     208 

Non-resistance 188 

Nothing  new    9 

Overt  acts   58, 105 

Overcoming    obstacles     120 

Paige's  commentaries  on  genealogy  of  Jesus   152 

Paige's  commentaries  on  sacrifice  of  Jesus 176 

Pardoning  power  of  Governor   158 

Penalty   fixes   plane   of    crime    50 

Persecution    101, 105 

Philosophers  of  liberty  of  thot    61 

Plan  and  design   (Ingersoll)    , 31 

Polygamy     101 

Popular    lecturers    54 

Powder,    Ineffectual    119 

Praise  of  other  rationalist  authors   8 

Proof  of  the  deluge   161 

Proofs 10,  12,  29,  38,  44,  117,  127,  131 

Prosperity    205 


236  INDEX 

PAGES 

Proudhon    207 

Purcell 133 

Reasoning,   Sample  of    127 

Rejudging  the  justice  of  God  38 

Responsibility     199 

Result   and   effect    47 

Revelation  the  guide * 48 

Ridicule  of   religion    7 

Right  to  express  thot  on  the  infinite 24 

Rights   of   women    95 

Rise  of  other  religions   118 

Rousseau    94 

Roving  lecturers    52 

Silence  and  subjection  excellent  for  all  96 

Slavery    10,  72,  75,  77,  103,  ill,  115,  193 

permitted    103 

not  an  evil  per  se   114 

Sneers  and  insults,  A  few  of  the 36,  107,  108 

Sort  of  thing  they  like  45 

Standard  of  right  and  wrong  191 

Statements  made  and  statements  not  made  141 

Subordination     84 

Suffering  not  designed  33 

Superior    man    77 

Suicide 178 

Surroundings  and  facts  of  being  164 

"Tactics  of  Infidels"   7 

Testimonials  for  the  "Notes"  45 

Test   of  truth    164 

Toleration,    Theories   of    58 

Tooley  Street  tailors  138 

Treason 58,  60,  105,  169,  175 

Truth  only  has  the  right  of  expression  24 

Vacuum 20 

Vague    rule    195 

Verbal    expressions 16 

Verbiage,   Meaningless    43 

Vicarious   suffering   186 

War,  Ingersoll's  defence  of  civil  73 

Warfare,   Barbarous    67 

Warfare.    God's  laws  of  71 


INDEX  237 
PAGES 

Wars  of  extermination  101,  104,  192 

conquest  78 

Water  runs  down  hill   14 

Way  to  be  saved  164 

What  no  Christian  denies   102 

Whims  •£  the  will  63 

Whom  Ingersoll  answered   224 

Why  we  must  not  torture  prisoners 69 

Will  of  God 193 

the  gods  211 

Witnesses,    Inspired    138 

Witchcraft    124 

Worse  than  Judas  178 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


UC  SOUIHtRM  HhUIONAL  LIBHAHY  hACIL 


A     000  890  406     2 


